Sign in to follow this  
ErnieAlston

FSUIPC 3.0 - The point some people are missing, FREEWAR...

Recommended Posts

A lot of people are missing the point related with FSUIPC 3.0 and Freware products. Or maybe, I'm the one missing it. If that is so, please correct me because I don't see anything wrong with Pete's recent announcemnet.I apologize with the mods for opening a new FSUIPC thread, I already posted this in another thread but I think this requires full attention.I think some of you need a very detailed explanation of how the new FSUIPC 3.0 will work in relation with FREEWARE products. Let me see if I can provide the explanation or I'm the one needing one. If you have a FREEWARE panel or any other FREEWARE add-on that works in FS2002 needing FSUIPC, and then you want to use it in FS2004, you will have to:1) Download from the major sites (AVSIM and others), the NEW FSUIPC 3.0 FREEWARE VERSION (the same procedure that you did before to get the latest FSUIPC for FS2002).2) Wait until the developer of the FREEWARE add-on has received from Pete Dowson a FREE KEY, so the developer can use the new interface and create an update for his FS2002 add-on so it can work in FS2004 (then he will release a patch for his product). The developer will not incur in any kind of economical transaction. So his product can still be FREE, and you will enjoy it as you did in FS2002.EXAMPLE (speculating): Oleksy Folov and his GREAT Dash 8-300Q requires FSUIPC in FS2002 to work. We then have to wait until Oleksy talks with Pete Dowson and then he gets the FREE KEY to access the limited required interface of the new FSUIPC 3.0. Oleksy then will create a patch for his Dash 8 and he will release it as a FREE PATCH. Voila! You have now this great Dash 8 working in FS2004 for FREE!.If you are wondering if your 100+ FREEWARE panels that you have now will work with the new FSUIPC 3.0 then you have to ask the developers if they still plan to create a patch. This is the only risk you assume with FREEWARE products, the developers can keep it up-to-date or not. They are now in the necessity to upgrade their old product to work with the NEW FS2004 and its NEW interface, FSUIPC 3.0. Now, if you ask me why Pete changed from freeware to payware now? I think that now is the best (and only) moment to do it, why?, because is now when a NEW interface (FSUIPC) was needed to be developed. It is now, when a NEW simulator (FS2004) is coming and is NOW when this new sim needs a NEW interface.For how long and how many PAYWARE products has used Pete's work for its own economical benefits? I think it's time for Pete to get the slice of the cake he deserves. But the best thing is that Pete cares about FREEWARE and he still developed a FREEWARE FSUIPC THAT WILL KEEP FREEWARE PRODUCTS WORKING AS PREVIOUS VERSIONS.That is something to respect and applaud, not something to attack. Thanks Pete, you have my sympathy and respect, keep up the great job.Carlos.

Share this post


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

So how about the people who bought 400 dollars worth of hardware, and their drivers are based on FSUIPC. Now their hardware is rendered useless until the payware developer PAYS pete for FSUIPC.Now if the payware developer immediately ponies up. You're golden. If not, then you either have to wait throught the legal wrangling, or you end up buying FSUIPC yourself, so that your hardware and payware will all work.AND ACCORDING TO PETE'S ANNOUNCEMENT, THIS COULD BE AN ONGOING THING. Nothing like buying a $400 yoke and rudder system so that I have the priviledge to pay Pete a $25.00 Stipend with each release of Flight Simulator. And nothing like being informed of this AFTER my purchase.Will.

Share this post


Link to post

Your loss. Use it with FS2k2. Sell it on eBay. Frankly, your beef is with the company that charged you $400 for hardware that doesn't even need an interface to FS to function - CH pedals don't need fsuipc...Also, Pete had no obligation to ever write another word of code again for the rest of his life, and probably shouldn't have because of the attiudes of people like you who DEMAND something for nothing. Open your eyes and realize the gift of time and effort that has been handed to you. And show some respect.

Share this post


Link to post

And remember Will, you paid for a product that will work with FS2002, nobody told you that your hardware will work with all the new sims created, and if that is the case, then the company has to deal with a serious trouble. Now that a new sim needs a new interface, it's not Pete's fault that your hardware doesn't work with FS2004, is the hardware's developers that has to deal with that issue.The company could:A) Create their own interface and provide an upgrade or,:( Pay Pete the value of his work.Both cases, it is the company choice to make a free patch or charge for it, and it is YOUR choice to buy it or not.Carlos.

Share this post


Link to post

I have not read the announcement, but I wish Pete would just let us buy FSUIPC from him, so we don't have to worry about the various developers doing this, that or the other thing.

Share this post


Link to post

>a FREEWARE FSUIPC THAT WILL KEEP FREEWARE PRODUCTS WORKING AS>PREVIOUS VERSIONS.>>That is something to respect and applaud, not something to>attack. Very well said.

Share this post


Link to post

"2) Wait until the developer of the FREEWARE add-on has received from Pete Dowson a FREE KEY, so the developer can use the new interface and create an update for his FS2002 add-on so it can work in FS2004 (then he will release a patch for his product). The developer will not incur in any kind of economical transaction. So his product can still be FREE, and you will enjoy it as you did in FS2002."==================In truth, Dowson totally controls what freeware will be allowed to use his product... as much as he controls which payware may use his product. He may withdraw the freeware priviledge at any time, and has in the past indicated he may have time limits for freeware keys.So instead of freeware, we now have "ask-ware" or "beg-ware" or "please-don't-deactivate-me-ware", or "at-your-whim-Peter-ware".There is no guarantee any program will be allowed to use FSUIPC 3+, freeware or payware, unless the developer prepays for the key prior to developing his software. Assuming you can get a key, after development, could prove disasterous.==================The only reason no other developer had created an IPC for the sim, was that there was never before a reason to re-invent the wheel. Now there is. And that's why Russel Dirks came up with FSConnect. And that's why I would encourage all freeware developers to use Russel's IPC, should he continue it's development for FS2004.And, if I understand Russel's restrictions, no commercial products may use FSConnect... they can go ahead and pay for FSUIPC, ( both modules can co-exist ), or they can develop their own IPC module.As I have written in the past, Microsoft could put an end to this by releasing their own IPC module and SDK. Then, everyone would be on an equal footing.===================I don't doubt Peter Dowson has spent hundreds of hours on FSUIPC in the past. But the past was free, and the past is over. How many hours of development are required for him to develop the IPC functionality of his new module for FS2004? Perhaps a dozen or two. Once the basic offsets are found, the IPC is the easiest part to develop... that's why he has promised the basic IPC functionality as a freebee for freeware developers. And that is very much to his credit.My objection is that he proposes a dictatorial control over ANY program that uses his module. All programs will require a key ( unless the enduser wants to pay for unlimited usage ). To me, that is not free. The cost is not measured in pounds or dollars.Dick

Share this post


Link to post

Quote from: Rhumbaflappy---------------------------------------------------------------------My objection is that he proposes a dictatorial control over ANY program that uses his module. All programs will require a key ( unless the enduser wants to pay for unlimited usage ). ---------------------------------------------------------------------I agree 100%. I find this whole issue repugnant. It is a sad day for the FS community.

Share this post


Link to post

>My objection is that he proposes a dictatorial control over>ANY program that uses his module. All programs will require a>key ( unless the enduser wants to pay for unlimited usage ).>To me, that is not free. The cost is not measured in pounds or>dollars.That is common-sense CYA on Dowsen's part. Look around at the world, in almost any venue, and you'll find keeping a controlling share of anything is the wisest thing a person can do. And more so, if one is venturing out into the realm of money for the first time. I myself would give him the benefit of the doubt, as he has poured alot of himself into FSUIPC for many years for the good of all. Now a spout: While many of us agree he has earned something for all those efforts, I also note that many commercial/payware/shareware projects are getting money using the sum of his efforts. I don't begrudge him going payware one iota just from that standpoint. While I have no idea (as I still haven't read the announcement *grin*) if it is/was the case, but that alone would get under my craw were I in his shoes.

Share this post


Link to post

No it's not. Not at all. None of those releases will work unless / until the original owner jumps through the hoops that Pete has decided they must now jump through. Nobody will be using legacy panels / aircraft that require fsuipc until that happens. Have you taken a look lately at the _staggering_ amount of legacy freeware add-ons here? I think it's reaching 30,000 just on AVSIM... not to mention other sites. Do you really think that the majority of those add-ons are still supported by the original authors? If you do, I've got a bridge in NY that I'd like to sell you. . . My point is that it's very naive to think that all of the time people invested in setting up these freeware add-ons, a lot of which required actual _work_ on the part of the end-user, is completely and utterly disposable. Granted, maybe we shouldn't expect that freeware add-ons made for a particular FS version will work with newer versions, but it's very arrogant to think that the only people putting _any_ effort into FS are the developers. I've spent many, many hours getting FS2002 set up to the point where it is, and I highly doubt I'm going to be upgrading beyond it now that it is clear that most of the work I've invested will go to waste simply because one individual thinks his efforts are more important than thousands of people's efforts.

Share this post


Link to post

If I create a module and somebody uses it so his product can work, at least I would like something back. If it is payware, I would like to receive at least a small portion of the revenues created by the selling of the product. And if is freeware, a thank you, a "can I use your module?" wouldn't hurt anyone.It

Share this post


Link to post

Carlos, I agree with you 100% The folks who are complaining need to recognize that Pete Dowson doesn't owe you anything!. He is not under any obligation to produce an upgrade for FS2004 at all. If he chose not to create an upgrade, then nothing that uses FSUIPC would work at all. We'd all be up the creek, and 20 bucks would seem like a great deal to get things working again.Those $400 pieces of hardware will still work in the environment they were sold for. And frankly, I think that if there's an issue, it's with the companies that make the hardware, not Pete. They should be providing the necessary drivers and software.

Share this post


Link to post

I completely agree.I have been fairly quiet on the FSUIPC threads - there's too many of them as it is - but I did want to pipe up as an owner of about $4500 (retail - I bought it all used) worth of Precision Flight Controls hardware. I have always been amazed that the drivers (FSUIPC and PFC.DLL) that make this stuff work was developed *gratis* - particularly given that it all works so well. I never really appreciated FSUIPC until I bought these devices... Now I am almost in awe of Dowson's selfless contribution to FS2002. I will gladly pony up and pay for the new drivers for FS2004. (Actually I probably won't have to as I made a sizeable contribution back when Pete was trying to make the donationware thing work.)Very soon after I got the PFC hardware, I made at least two specific requests of Pete - one revolving around my desire to use my PFC avionics panel to control the FSAvionics Garmin GPS sim, and the other to allow the use of one knob on the PFC Remote Instrument Controller to control the DG, so that I would have a hardware method to correct my DG for precession. Pete implemented these features within days to a few weeks of my request - and in fact made improvements such that any switch/knob on the PFC hardware could be used to control any available FS2002 control variable. As a result I have total hardware switch/knob control over the FSAvionics (R.I.P.) Garmin unit - very cool.So with these very positive experiences in hand, I find the whining and Knashing of Teeth about the fact that it ain't free anymore to be pathetic... That's the only word I can think of. I know that this puts a number of freeware/payware authors in a predicament - my attitude is that if you don't like it, develop your own interface routines to FS2004. I believe that some fellow has already undertaken this effort - I wish him well, but what happens when he can no longer update/support that code, due to any number of unforeseen circumstances?Heck, when Pete can no longer support the fine work he's done - now THAT'S what I will call a sad day in Flight Simulator history.Dave Blevins

Share this post


Link to post

>And, if I understand Russel's restrictions, no commercial>products may use FSConnect... Just to correct a point, there are no restrictions on FSConnect. It can be used by freeware or payware products. But keep in mind it is quite limited in comparison to FSUIPC. For instance, you can't read any AI information out of the sim, and you can't write anything into it, except lat/lon. I don't think there are a lot of payware products out there that could use my module, and I have no intention of doing any further development on it, except to adapt it to new versions of FS as they come out. The only reason I wrote it was so that my program EZ-Landclass would not be dependent on FSUIPC. Cheers,Russ Dirks

Share this post


Link to post

Where in God's Name was all this "love" when Pete started taking voluntary donations. I mean if everyone here on this forum, (and I am sure there are others who haven't piped in) who feels that Pete is so 'worthy' of their hard earned dollar, than how come it took Pete to holding a gun against their head to pipe up?I have never ONCE thought that his module was worth $20 bucks. I'm sorry, for what it alone provides, I would never think of paying for it. What others have done with it, There's another story.It's amazing how many of you rush to judgement against all of us who feel that Pete is making a terrible business decision. We have been called whiners, sworn at, cry babys, and the like, at yet I see none of you stepping up when donations were volunatary and taking one for "the team".Money Talks and BS Walks. So far, All I've heard from most of you is BS.I made a point that if Microsoft had done the same with Direct X (also a very "useful" module for us Flight Simmers) that we would all be storming Bill's House. Only one came out and said that I was incorrect, and their reasoning was based on Pete's economic situation. As if that has ANYTHING to do with the way he is arranging his business plan. Somehow It's OK for Pete To Shut off support, or charge for his product or do whatever he wants with FSUIPC, but the same doesn't hold true to Microsoft? And ONLY because Microsoft is "bigger".Heck some of you were crying a river because FS2002 was never patched (GASP!!), How in God's Name could Microsoft not issue a patch!?!. They suck!!! Yet Pete can do with FSUIPC anything he wants to, and no words of dissention from you guys? If Microsoft were to start charging for the SDK for Flight Simulator, you all would claim that Bill Gates is shutting down add-on development and ruining the hobby. Yet Pete can do the same with FSUIPC, and it is a "small price to pay"?Have any of you thought this through beyond the "David vs. Goliath" implications?The second, Pete charges and receives a license fee, his world will turn upside down. Because developers are now "paying" for his services, they can also hold him in breach of contract or worse, should he fail to deliver a "bug fix" by a scheduled milestone.Pete can no longer turn to the community and say "Hey, don't complain, it's just freeware". So when a hardware developer or software developer doesn't make a ship date because of a milestone that Pete did not make. There will literally be hell to pay.And if 5, 10 15 developers all pay their "fee" to license FSUIPC, then how do you provide priority to the bug list. Which ones do you fix first. And how do you tell Developer A, that you are fixing his bugs first over Developer B? Is it first come first serve? Based on Severity? Based on how many units out there?But hey, Go Pete! We're all behind you.I've given up. Most of you fail to provide logical answers to questions I have, and then resort to personal attacks against our character. Be that as it may. You have your opinion and I spent 10 years in the US Navy defending you right to it. So be it. I'll revisit this in 3 months or so, after the full effect of Pete's decision is felt, and will see how many change their tune. And if I turn out to be completely wrong, I will be happily wrong. However, if you are wrong, none of you will be happy about it.Will

Share this post


Link to post

Gentlemen,Let's all remain calm about the situation and look at it from various angles rather than "taking sides".For one thing I am personally eternally grateful for the many hours of joy with FS that Pete Dowson HELPED to provide with his FSUIPC interface, and thankfully we have so far been able to enjoy it for free. Pete on the other hand has put in hundreds if not thousands of hours work into this baby of his and deserves a lot of recognition and applause for that.Pete's decision to go commercial with FSUIPC is one that I can personally understand, yet that does not mean I particularly like it. But as I said I can understand it and respect Pete's decision. Remember he is the author of FSUIPC and therefore holds every right in the world to take the decision to do with it whatever he pleases. The users on the other hand have no right whatsoever to demand anything.... Think about it how you would feel if you had provided something for free and are faced with demands that sometimes are not even formulated politely.Now for those people that argue that he now holds the freeware world at his mercy I must say that this is complete nonsense. Any freeware, or payware developer has in fact the possibility of creating his own FS-interface, bundle it with his creation and distribute it to the community without having to ask Pete for a key in the first place.Pete is only asking those that wish to use his FSUIPC instead of creating their own to apply for a key. He has strongly stressed the fact that genuine freeware will get the keys for free and that shareware and commercial developers will have to pay a royalty fee. Can't be much fairer than this in my opinion.In fact I believe that we will see a lot of this happening in the future as developers may be more inclined to create a specific interface that cators to the needs of their add-on rather than using Pete's generic FSUIPC.Who knows maybe somebody comes up with an even better FS-Interface. Pete for one thing has certainly opened the door for the development of another FS-Interface and has put himself with his decision to go commercial with it under immense pressure because he will have to constantly improve his interface and make sure it's the best in order to remain in the market. Not an easy decision to take either.My 2 cents worth concerning this issue.Happy flyingRalph HummelStaff ReviewerAVSIM Online

Share this post


Link to post

>I have never ONCE thought that his module was worth $20 bucks. I'm >sorry, for what it alone provides, I would never think of paying >for it. What others have done with it, There's another story.I think if one makes a list of all the application that we have now (or had in the past) that would not even have been created were it not that FSUIPC was in existence then one would come to the conclusion $20 is a bargain. So IMO it has always been worth $20 or more.However I do think that once you make that decision to give something away for free. You have to live with that de-vauation of your product. If you later on decide to go payware, you should not be trying to get income on what you had earlier decided on your own to give away for free. To go payware after being freeware does mean that you must provide significantly more value added functionality than what was in the free version, and this I do not see in FSUIPC. The extra features are rather miniscule for the asking price of $22. It is as if you are paying now for what was given to you before for free. I have no problem with Peter going payware, but I do wish there was significantly more new functionality than there is.In my case I donated earlier, so the decision to buy is a non-issue for me.>The second, Pete charges and receives a license fee, his world will >turn upside down. Because developers are >now "paying" for his >services, they can also hold him in breach of contract or worse, >should he fail to deliver >a "bug fix" by a scheduled milestone.I disagree, It will be like any other software. The developer is under no 'legal' obligation to fix bugsOf course if he wants repeat customers or maintain a good reputation for support he should be prepared to fix the most serious bugs. Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, the idea of selling my stuff on e-bay is pretty silly. I would never recoup my investment, so the 35 bucks paid to Pete is the better deal. Aggravating, sure, but I have to protect my investment. And I have to go the extra yard because I use WideFS. Gee, I wonder what Schiratti is doing? Gotta check that one...Seems Will and me are on the same page, that we got something supported by a manufacturer who later changed their integration procedures and now we have to pay for that change. In this particular case, the user should not be penalized for a business decision made by the vendor.Remember, the PFC stuff was not initially compatible with FS, PFC later created their OWN .dll to make it function in FS and they marketed it that way. When they figured out Pete could do a better job, and he did, they went to him and nobody complained as nobody would have ever expected what is now happening to actually occur.Now, PFC, who profited by Pete's work by using his module to make their hardware work in FS, are walking away from their support of the product by making the users purchase an "after market" product to make their product work in FS.Sure, you have to buy a computer to use the stuff, you have to buy an operating system, you have to buy the flight simulator.That happens to be back asswards.I didn't buy my PFC console and then say "Gee, I have this really cool console, I better buy a computer so I can use it!"The console was an ADDITION to a working, pre-existing configuration. An enhancement, not a requirement. I bought the console because they said it would work with FS. And it does, thanks to Pete.That the .dll delivered by PFC was less than perfect is not my fault. That they had to get Pete to sort it out for them is not my fault. That they decided to not attempt to fix their original .dll and throw in completely with Pete IS NOT MY FAULT.If, when I initially purchased this product, there was a disclaimer that FSUIPC was required, well, OK. But there wasn't. I am probably repeating myself, but there are so many people out there who are missing the point. It's a matter of principle.It's the "well, you bought FS2004, so what's the big deal about another 20 bucks or so?" thing they posted on their site. If they had claimed economics, it would be too expensive to absorb the cost, or we are a small company, or ANYTHING except that condescending, elitist line.I was already set to buy Petes' full license FSUIPC. Not a problem, I don't really care. But I would have thought that the PFC guys would have AT LEAST gone for the freeware deal of making their product compatible with the freeware FSUIPC. They chose not to and theirin lies the rub.Every argument/debate has a hole and some have pointed out that the thing works fine with FS2002. Well, this thing started with FS2000, with backwards compatibility with FS98. A precedent was set when the product was made to work (at no cost) with FS2002. Lifetime support with a trend of supporting newer versions should equal no problems. But Pete finally got his back up and here we are. sighI'm going to stop babbling along, with this quote from the original FS6IPC readme file. A lot of people think that Pete invented FSUIPC. He has done a bucket load of work, and he most assuredly deserves equal bucket loads of credit for the furtherence of the module, but the thing started with Adam Szofran, and his original intentions were for the module to be freeware, as indicated here:"Redistribution Terms--------------------FS6IPC.DLL is FREEWARE, and:* MAY NOT BE sold.* MAY NOT BE uploaded to, nor archived in, BBSs which charge file download fees.* MAY NOT BE uploaded to, nor archived in, BBSs which are partly or wholly beneficially owned or operated by a commercial enterprise which is engaged in the sale of computer hardware or software.* MAY NOT BE redistributed with computer hardware or software for which money is charged.* MAY NOT BE redistributed by a commercial publisher in any form or under any pretext. This prohibition includes but is not limited to floppy disks and CD-ROMs distributed with magazines or books.* MAY NOT BE redistributed on floppy disk, CD-ROM, nor in any other printed or electronic storage form for which money is charged, nor as part of a package for which money is charged. This prohibition includes but is not limited to any form of redistribution for which any type of materials or handling fees are charged.* MAY NOT BE disassembled, decompiled, decomposed, decoded, nor reverse engineered.Subject to the exclusions listed above, the archive containing FS6IPC.DLLmay be uploaded to BBSs and otherwise redistributed on a FREEWARE basis aslong as the original compressed archive and its contents are not modifiedin any way.THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS to the redistribution terms stated above withoutthe written permission of the author.Copyright---------FS6IPC.DLL carries the following copyright:Copyright © 1995-1997 by Adam Szofran. All rights reserved"So that is a bit olde, and for all we know, Adam has signed off on Petes' new deal. That's fine. I am only attempting to remind all concerned of the INTENT of the original deal.My, how far we have come.BC

Share this post


Link to post

>Heck, when Pete can no longer support the fine work he's done>- now THAT'S what I will call a sad day in Flight Simulator>history.>And that's exactly why he decided to go commercial. It was either that or stop development.Pete spent a lot of money and time on FSUIPC, and both have now run out.He can either go on with FSUIPC if he gets reimbursed for the effort, OR he can abandon it and get a paying job doing something else in the time he'd gain (as I understand it he's not fully dependent on the imcome but it's getting ever harder scraping by without).

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for that. I wonder if FSUIPC is truly an original work or if it is a "reverse engineered" version of FS6IPC?Wouldn't it be ironic if all this fuss was over whether or not we should pay to support a piece of pirated (albeit highly modified, but still pirated,) software.I am not saying that Pete pirated FS6IPC. I am saying that it would be most ironic if it was found out that he did use FS6IPC code to base FSUIPC on.

Share this post


Link to post

>And that's exactly why he decided to go commercial. It was>either that or stop development.As I pointed out in another thread, Peter had a third option: pass on FSUIPC to another freeware developer, like he took over from Adam. (I'm sure there would have been volunteers if he had asked).But he obviously didn't choose for that.Which, by the way, I fully respect, because that's his decision and his alone.Rob

Share this post


Link to post

"To go payware after being freeware does mean that you must provide significantly more value added functionality than what was in the free version, and this I do not see in FSUIPC."I don't agree. Just the fact of making FSUIPC working in FS2004 is a tremendous added value. What remains the same is the interface not the program.Jos

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I'd avoid the use of the "P" word. FSUIPC was definitely derived from FS6IPC. When Adam decided to stop working on the module, the torch was passed on to Pete. I'd have to say that Pete has probably done way more work on the module than Adam did, but that's neither here nor there.In reality, if you put so much time into a project, would you be willing to just give it away to someone else to carry on? I know that I would have a hard time doing that. It's a tough situation. I do know one thing, if Pete should decide to hang it up, it would be a MAJOR loss to the sim community, and I for one would never want to see that happen.BC

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this