Sign in to follow this  
Guest Aidi

Direct X to go to a payware Model!!!! (Read the whole message)

Recommended Posts

IMPORTANT Version 10 of DirectX will be released soon. This will be the first release to require registration by the User for access to all its facilities, and to need an access key from those applications which interface with it. Why ... should I pay for Direct X? The short answer is that you do not have to. The registration by users of their copy of DirectX is not compulsory. Here are the pros and cons: What you get if you don't pay: * The ability to run all DirectX-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 Microsoft which permits them to access the DirectX interface and, if they wish, package a copy of DirectX 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. What you get if you pay: * Facilities for joystick calibration, some fancy assignments, and button programming. * Key press programming facilities * 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 DirectX. This may come in especially useful for programs which are no longer maintained by their developer and therefore not likely to become accredited. * The possibility of additional user options to come. There are a few on our list, but we cannot guarantee any until we get to them and study the implications. We are also open to requests and suggestions, as in fact we have been over these last several years -- that is how DirectX has become what it is. * Support from Microsoft for any queries or problems arising from the use of DirectX, or identifiable as DirectX even when using an application. We still expect the application developer to be the prime support for his own application, and it is easier for him to sort out DirectX interfacing problems with us rather than between the user and us, if you see what we mean. * All this for at least the life of FS2004, We cannot guarantee to continue this into and beyond FS2006 or whatever, that would really be asking too much. A word about DirectPlay. This a part of DirectX in the sense that it extends Direct X's interface to other PCs on a Network. Theoretically I could extend the application key access system to that networked interface too, so that the use of DirectPlay would be free for accredited programs. However, I don't think that is quite fair. DirectPlay has probably required more support from me than DirectX over the six or seven years that it has been around, and I think I really do need to account for that, a little. Furthermore, attempting to support the access key system across the network would make things much more complex, and I certainly would not be releasing an FS2004 compatible version for a long time if I needed to do that. So, whilst we do expect applications rather than users to purchase the access rights to the DirectX interface, I expect the user to pay just a little for the ability to run them over a Network. *******THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RELEASE BY MICROSOFT, BUT RATHER A POST TO TRY AND GET PEOPLE TO SEE A POINT.*****DON'T WORRY, MICROSOFT IS NOT CHARGING FOR DIRECTX.....YET!If this type of action would be considered to be unacceptable by Microsoft, how come it is acceptable for Pete and FSUIPC?And if you say it's "different", tell me how so.

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I must admit I was a little worried for a second. I fail to see how this is relevant....?

Share this post


Link to post

Talk about Apples and Tangerines. I really don't see the link between MS' support for DirectX and Pete's individual and (til' now) free support with FSUIPC????? Pete's been updating FSUIPC for years for free to all our benefit. I can only imagine the countless hours he's spent on it. You complain because now he's charging a nominal fee for such an incredibly useful module??? INCREDIBLE!!!Dave

Share this post


Link to post

HAHAHA....that's a classic :-lolUnfortunately there will be some who will either not see the point, or will just argue for the sake of arguing. Thankfully I earned a long time ago never to explain myself on these message boards.

Share this post


Link to post

How so. Direct X has been financed by Microsoft and has been supported by Microsoft without a fee. No one "pays" Microsoft to use Direct X or to develop for it.I complain not because he's charging, but because I have no choice, and I purchased hardware, without the thought of having to pay again to use it. Once I buy payware, or hardware, I don't expect to have to pay a third party for its use again.

Share this post


Link to post

...good griefwhenever we jamaicans get frustrated, english goes out the door - so here goes:STAR!! - a fehim own!!!! - nobady neva hax no developah fi use fs6ipc or fsuipc - a de developahdem decide fi use it!!!!de man cyan charge anyting him want fe de saaffware - a FEHIM OWN!!!do my addons for fs2002 work now? - yes and thanks a bunchis Peter Dowson obliged to ensure - by whatever means that costs me nada, that his module continues on into the future to ensure my addons work blah blah blah yak yak...aw forget it. Regards,Markps - if anybody ought to complain its people like me whose salaries, when converted into 'real' money, is (sorry, ARE, what'd i say about the english) patheticyou go Pete, got my 1200 j (or whatever the equivalent is at the time - if i can't afford it - too bad for me) ready when you are

Share this post


Link to post

From BobP in the other forum:_______________________________________________________________I also have a large investment in PFC equipment. I'm wondering if we'll get double charged? I plan to buy the $20 FSUIPC and note that PFC also plans to charge me a fee for the FS2004 drivers. I understand the fee is to cover their cost to Mr. Dawson. I'm going to email them, and suggest they EAT that as a cost of doing business. What's this PFC equipment. I've seen it mentioned before. Some sort of yoke setup?

Share this post


Link to post

Pete Dowson is not a multibillion dollar corporation with the resources to develop "free" products.That Windows XP upgrade CD costs $100 - do you think that doesn't factor in the cost of DirectX development? Do you really think there's a couple guys at Microsoft sitting in a cubicle developing DirectX who aren't being paid for their work? Think they're doing it for the "hobby" of running games?These threads are starting to get amazingly stupid. I hope the mods consider either cutting them off completely or makign a single "sanctioned thread" for this, because frankly I'm sick of seeing the front page of the forum filled with posts by people who are too cheap to pull out a 20 dollar bill to pay Pete for the work he's provided all of us since freaking FS98.RyanI have edited the start of this post in case your wondering. Comments like that are un-called for.

Share this post


Link to post

Tell you what.......go develop your own version, you'll find the source code Peter released a while ago, until YOU can offer something and it has a track record as good as Peter's and provide it FREE and SUPPORT it for the next five years, kindly do an Elvis.

Share this post


Link to post

Peter Dowson has NEVER released the source code of the FSUIPC module.It has always been his secret. He has released an SDK that has code examples to interface with the DLL, but never the code or documentation needed to produce your own DLL.Dick

Share this post


Link to post

"Talk about Apples and Tangerines"there really isn't alot of difference.. I'm sure MS techs also put countless hr's into upgrading Directx over the many years (more then FSUIPC) its been around and supported for free. But yet ya don't see MS making a money grab for thier freeware to support the payment of the emplyies they have working on it."nominal fee "I don't see how about 1/2 the price of the software that its suppose to run with is considered nominal lets say there are 100 ppl that use flightsim and Pete charges those 100 ppl $22 bucks each to BUY his up to now freeware... thats NOT nominal but rather a profit making scheme... Nomial means Minimal and in the FS world for a piece of software like Pete's thats NOT even close to nominal just look around at the payware that IS avalible for FS these days.. MB's of scenery files run around the same kinda price as Pete's much smaller program.so in all fairness I don't see how the word Nominal even entered into this

Share this post


Link to post

I think if some people in this community actually took a little time to sit back and realize exactly what is involved with some of the software coming out these days then they might view developers in a different light.I personally get a little annoyed constantly seeing people having a go at anyone who sells a product for flightsim. The bottom line is if you dont want to buy it then dont. Its YOUR decision and nobody elses. I also think that if anyone in this community deserves a little financial support for his hard work and dedication then its Pete Dowson. He has let us have his work for as long as I can remember for FREE. I think if people knew the countless hours of work, research, development etc that went into creating a product for our enjoyment they would be rather humbled.Too many times I have seen people in these (and other) forums taking a swipe at these guys. There was a post on here earlier today making a comparison between flightsim as a hobby and other common pastimes. You dont expect to get "add-ons" for your other hobbys for free, so why should certain areas of flightsim be any different? One of my hobbies is flying a radio controlled helicopter. When I goto the shop which i bought it from i dont expect to get the fuel for free.Just take a min to think before going into the offensive at payware developers.http://www.vfr-flightcenter.com/avsim_sig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmmm....I didn't realized that it was now okay to tell someone to "screw off" in these forums just because you don't subscribe to their opinion.Are the forum guidelines only enforced selectively?

Share this post


Link to post

>Hmmmm....I didn't realized that it was now okay to tell>someone to "screw off" in these forums just because you don't>subscribe to their opinion.>>Are the forum guidelines only enforced selectively?*** Edited ***No bad language...no personal insults.I must admit that I too fail to see the point of this thread.Where as it might not sound "offensive" it not the sort of comment we condone in the forums.

Share this post


Link to post

>Hmmmm....I didn't realized that it was now okay to tell>someone to "screw off" in these forums just because you don't>subscribe to their opinion.>>Are the forum guidelines only enforced selectively?No the forum guidelines are not enforced selectively. We make no exceptions regardless of who posted the message. Sometimes its hard to keep up with all thats going on and somethings will pass us by.Keeping tabs on ALL the posts not only in this particular forum but the multitude of others is quite a consuming job.http://www.vfr-flightcenter.com/avsim_sig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

So it's okay to get screwed by a small developer and not by a multimillion dollar one.Okay, I see the difference now. You're joking right?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this