Given that FSUIPC is so widely used in Flight Sim, is it not time to incorporate its features directly into FSX without relying on Peter Dowson to update it. No doubt Peter has done an unbelievable job with it over the past 10 years or so, and he has now had a chance to make some money from it but are we not relying on him a bit too much, particularly when he has stated that he may not continue development further than FS9 (although he may have since updated that statement).Mark.

Whoa there's a hot topic! Hmmm- I wonder too...This is *one* area I think x-plane is very strong, they output all their data directly to a text file or something right? (Dump data by pressing a key) but I think they now offer data to be pumped out of the sim via a similar avenue that FSUIPC takes right -of course without the need of a module like FSUIPC but built into the program-?-edit had to edit for spelling

Yes, I agree that this is one area where it is imperative to have alternatives. I remember the controversy that arose when Pete Dowson announced FSUIPC would become payware, and it really brought home the problem of 90%+ of add-ons being dependent on a module by a single developer.Of course there already are a couple alternatives, such as the Pipes SDK by Microsoft and the FDSConnection module, but as I understand it they aren't nearly as powerful or comprehensive as FSUIPC. Anyway it would be wonderful if we could forgo the need for a 3rd party interface entirely and have it built into FS, especially if it is something as important as this.

>...he has stated that he may not continue development further than FS9...Where did you hear (or read) that Pete Dowson may not continue development of FSUIPC past FS9?Regards,Joshua Robertson (creator of FS Real Time)3D Softworks Design Studioshttp://www.3dsoftworks.net

I believe that Peter made a statement when FS2004 was released that basically stated he would not guarantee support beyond this version. Like I said in my post that may have changed.Mark.

Pete has frequently said he doesn't guarantee any continued support for FSUIPC. Here, however, are his own words on the subject....Pete Dowson:"I am 63 this year and the way FS is programmed is getting more and more difficult to get into. I keep hoping some of the other interface programs that I hear about will rise to the challenge, but that doesn't seem to be happening. I started all this -- not just FSUIPC, but all of my FS-related software, because I needed it, to support my activity in this absorbing hobby. I have lots invested in hardware (you would probably not believe it unless you saw it), and in software, and of course in time. If I were NOT to support future versions of FS, it would render all my own hardware and software investment worthless to me, unless, of course, some alternative, just as good, were to become available. For that reason it is in my interest to at least try to get to grips with each new FS version as it appears, as far as I am able. It may turn out to be too difficult, or even impossible (as, for instance, CFS3 was). But if I am still alive I will certainly be trying, unless someone else is going to provide me with all I need to drive my own cockpit. Any volunteers?"As we all know, "FreeFD" said they were those volunteers. Their software was going to be a replacement for FSUIPC that would be free to use even to Payware developers (FSUIPC is, of course, still free to use with Freeware) - but they found out very quickly just how much work it REALLY was, anmd dropped it like a rock.Richard

MS should pay Pete handsomely for his work and add a couple of resources from MIT to integrate it to FSX onwards.:)Manny

or maybe Pete would give it to MS if they would incorporate it and then make the code accessable to to other for its future advancement...Mark.

the only controversy was a group of ungrateful kids shouting very loudly that Peter had no right to stop giving them the product for free.In fact Peter first asked for voluntary donations and only when the response to that was overwhelmingly negative (including people trying to donate negative amounts which were of course blocked by the donation system) did he decide to make paying mandatory to have full functionality.

I'm not sure but I believe Pete has in the past more than once turned down offers of that kind from various companies.

>I'm not sure but I believe Pete has in the past more than>once turned down offers of that kind from various companies.I hope he doesn't give it to anyone other than Microsoft if he ever does decide to sell.This piece of code is too important...They could hold the fsim community hostage and extort all kinds of money. :)Manny

Hi.There is no reason why Peter, that I can see, could not continue even if MS would give us a similar access.I am sure MS does not need to buy the code from Peter, they have the source and could figure out what they need to do, and create a similar product. Does it make sense to do it? Probably not, having to support a utility like that would not be profitable, in addition to that they may not want to give out some of that information. I am surprised that they are as tolerant, as they are, about what some of these developers are doing with their code.I would like to see something that would give us the same access, but I am not holding my breath. I would at least like to see the ability to see the VC and Scenery be displayed in separate windows, and better yet Full screen mode, and a Flight Model with improved Slow flight characteristics, like fly 172, full flaps, with stall horn on, at 36KIAS. TV

Makes sense to me. (Except the MIT reference???)

I will tell you this-As a home flight deck builder, if Pete Dowsen didnt provide FSUIPC, we'd all be up the creek. Sure, someone would eventually come along and do somthing, but at what cost? And by cost, I mainly mean TIME. I hope that somehow the legacy of FSUIPC, or somthing equally powerful remains or comes along for each new version of FS.

Anyone who knows the history of FSUIPC knows that it was originally called FS6IPC and that it was originally the design and idea of Adam Zofran (I think that's the correct spelling) Adam Zofran was (and possibly still is) on the Microsoft Team for creating all the Microsoft Flight Simulator versions. (I don't know if he's still on the team for FSX). If he is, I think that it would be fitting that the heavily modified FSUIPC code be returned to him so that development can be allowed to continue when the time comes that Pete Dowson decides to throw in the towel.The worst thing that could happen is if FSUIPC were to go open-source. The reason I say this is that if you have an open-source system, you'll have thousands upon thousands of developers writing their own versions of FSUIPC with their own modifications which may or may not be inter-compatible with each others FSUIPC versions. For instance, you'll have software developed by one person written for FSUIPC from "Company X" which won't work on FSUIPC from "Company Y".Granted, I know we'd all love to see the source code but in my humble opinion, that'll just open up pandoras box.Regards,Joshua Robertson (creator of FS Real Time)3D Softworks Design Studioshttp://www.3dsoftworks.net