FSUIPC for FSX

[n4gix 4,954]

>If delivery is via downloads (zero publishing costs)..."Zero publishing costs?" You've never had to pay for bandwidth usage before, not to mention server space, and other associated costs, have you?

[rich135 0]

A highly extensible FS is a good thing. Should MS invest lots of effort in this given all the other requests for features? I think so. More folks can be part of the solution, allowing MS to focus on the engine. If I only had one feature request it would be, "Help us to help you. If a third party can do it, don't waste your limited valuable time on it."If you have programmed FSUIPC and WideFS, you know your are kind of skating on thin ice. As Pete has said, its getting harder and harder to support with each new version of FS. Is "memory mapping" a good idea when you don't have the source code? Should MS keep everything in the same place to maintain compatibility with FSUIPC? I think this method is going to run its course (if not already).But there is a dilemma. Pete can issue fixes and enhancements every week. Based on past history, MS updates will be measured in years. So perhaps we need a transition period where both native API's and FSUIPC are supported. Tough call, but native API's are the safe bet in the long run.

[Guest Rayed]

With all respect to Pete Dowson and all great posibilities his plugin opened in current and previous versions - I hope that in FSX or at least FSXI we won't need any clever hacks to to mod the game. It might be bit over the top wish, but I still have hope :).Most problems, slowdowns etc.. people have with addons are because in many cases addons are external programs interacting with FS using unsupported (thankfully well written and working) way.Plugin weather engine, plug in ATC engine, planes are plugins.. etc. Don't like it and want more - replace it.From the other hand, I don't think such system would work without some kind of certification of addons from MS itself, because users would probably request support for the addons from MS if an addon would operate from inside the program and would be tightly integrated with the interface :).Probably cost of this would be big too.

[Guest freefd]

>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.Now that was indeed a stirring bit of imagination there on your part..I have no idea where you got the notion that I was going to provide an FSUIPC interface. If I did, I must have been SERIOUSLY drunk, and I don't even drink!Don.

[MD83 1]

I hope the community can move away from its FSUIPC dependency. FSUIPC's basic features should be in the core of MSFS :)

[rhumbaflappy 113]

Hi all.Many current aircraft and addons require FSUIPC in order to work.FSUIPC will be needed for them to work in FSX. Hopefully Peter Dowson will be able to provide such an interface for FSX.Dick

[Guest Id Rather Be Flying]

>>Many current aircraft and addons require FSUIPC in order to>work.EXACTLY THE POINT! Why don't people "GET" this that if you CONSTANTLY have to rely on a 3rd party then we will ALWAYS need that 3rd party! If "EASIER" access to flight sim were built in as exported functions, then we wouldn't NEED FSUIPC. I am not going to belabor the point but it's this simple:1. Flight Sim has a value which I wish to get or change.2. FSUIPC attaches to FS Memory Space to write and read variables.3. 3rd party software has to go to FSUIPC to read/write a value because Flight Sim doesn't have an "EASY FUNCTION" to read/write a variable.If you ELIMINATE the middle man then you ALSO speed up your flight sim experience as well PERIOD.Carmine http://forums.avsim.net/images/wave.gifhttp://img155.imageshack.us/img155/7118/phoenixtp8mg.jpg

[bic 44]

I tried to use the fds, but found it too slow. As soon as I switched to FSUIPC, it was smoking fast.

[Guest jrobert]

>If you ELIMINATE the middle man then you ALSO speed up your>flight sim experience as well PERIOD.If you "Eliminate the middle man" then he should be paid hansomely for it. Pete has graced us with FSUIPC for so long that it would be hard to imagine a flight simulator world without him or his wonderful product. Integrating it directly into Flight Simulator would indeed help but that would again mean that Microsoft would have to provide backwards compatability all the way back to Flight Simulator 98 which I think they're not quite willing to do. Each software product Microsoft produces has a support shelf-life of about 4 to 6 years depending on what the software is. For example Microsoft Windows 98 is about to transition into a non-supported status come July 11, 2006. Thats nearly 8 years of support for the product. They wouldn't support a particular Flight Simulator for nearly that long; there's no need to because of the rapidly changing hardware available making it possible for a new flight sim to be produced every 2 to 3 years.

[boshar 6]

Where did you download FSUIPC?There are very few people that download it directly from Pete...

[=Hollywood= 0]

hehehe I just re-installed FS98 and FS2000 on my system after a crash... runs nicely lol...anyway that's off topic...

[B777ER 2,492]

Nevermind that I need Pete's PFC.dll to run my hardware.

[B777ER 2,492]

>Adam (and it's spelled 'Szofran') is our terrain engine>developer. He hasn't seen the FSUIPC code for many years and>has no interest in seeing it, as far as I know. ;) Well, Pete's getting up there in age so someone better have an intrest in seeing it or we will have a bunch of useless software.

[Guest jboweruk]

This'll probably open up (yet another) can of worms, but I think fSUIPC is worth every penny/cent/euro/whatever that Peter charges. After all, once you've paid that one off fee (and that was my only concern when he announced it would be payware, was how often would we have to pay) then the updates are free. Peter, for what you have done, may the FS Community be truly grateful. But with so many add-ons relying on it, and Peter not getting any younger then it's time for somebody (preferably MS) to take up the mantle. If this is going to need to be part of MS, at least for the forseeable future, then it needs to have it's future assured.

[MD83 1]

-