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

[Guest cast1010]

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.

[Guest wathomas777]

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.

[Gridley 257]

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.

[Guest cast1010]

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.

[E 0]

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.

[Gridley 257]

Wish Granted! :)

[Guest ba747heavy]

>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.

[rhumbaflappy 113]

"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

[Guest]

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.

[E 0]

>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.

[Guest guyjr]

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.

[Guest cast1010]

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

[Flyer Ken 0]

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.

[blave 0]

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

[russdirks 0]

>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