FSUIPC for FSX

[Guest garwig2]

I would add AFCAD and TrafficTools as essential programs that I worry may not become available for FSX :( I hope something will come along like these so we can keep tweaking the AI to our liking.-Gary Letona

[Guest tdragger]

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. ;)

[Guest]

And I think he was in one of the channel 9 videos..

[Guest fsxcess]

What about FS Navigator? I would say it is one of the 'important' tools to incorporate into FSX :)

[rhumbaflappy 113]

>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 Studios>http://www.3dsoftworks.netHi Joshua.FDSConnection IS open source and has the IPC functionality of FSUIPC.I used the source-code to produce an FDSConnection.dll specific to CFS2. Why would someone use FDSConnection ( or Russel Dirks' FSConnect ) rather than FSUIPC? Pete Dowson controls who may develop freeware/payware FSUIPC. Russ Dirks doesn't allow his FSConnect module to be included in packages... but only downloaded from him or AVSIM. Freeware usage is fien, but he controls distribution of the module.FDSConnection may be included right with freeware packages.Given these choices, I'd rather use FDSConnection, and include it with the zipped utility package. Then I know the end-user has the right working module... and the source-code of FDSConnection is available.Dick

[n4gix 4,947]

Let's suppose for a moment that FSX does ship with a built in IPC facility. Wonderful!Now, new projects could interface directly with FSX, making their creation easier.But, what about all the existing projects that rely on FSUIPC? Either they would be rendered useless until rewritten for the new IPC, or......an entirely new FSUIPC could be developed to "translate" the new IPC hooks to the existing FSUIPC hooks... :)Aside from the above, don't forget that FSUIPC has moved far beyond the original, core purpose of the module. Even if I never used a bit of the IPC capabilities at all, the other features of FSUIPC continue to make it a "must have" for me...

[Avcomware 1]

Hi.I do not think that MS needs to worry about compatibility. The Developers that are using now FSUIPC can keep using it.The one good thing about having access / DLL is that people would not have to get another utility, the ability to standardize, etc.The people that are using FSUIPC now for other purposes, can keep using it. If there is any chance that Peter will not continue, the developers will have a lot more to loose, if MS does not do the DLL.I am not sure that Peter can sell the code without Adam

[Vulcan 14]

>What about FS Navigator? I would say it is one of the>'important' tools to incorporate into FSX :)I agree with that given the far superior facilities of FSNav over the default map and flight planning capabilities of FS. My gut feeling is that we are more likely to lose FSNav than Pete's FSUIC.

[Manny 1,293]

I prefer FSBuild over FSNav.FSUIPC is unique.

[Guest robains]

My 2 cents:1. Pete worked hard to produce what he did, why should he not get paid for it??2. I don't know exactly what method Pete used to integrate with FS9, but there are several approaches to determining what FS9 is doing at any moment in time. Some can be as simple as monitoring the various messages for each window handle/thread (as those handles are created/destroyed by the owning thread FS9) to the more complex looking at an assembled FS9.EXE -- if I had to try to dissemble the EXE and related DLLs, I'd probably give up too. Or find the entry points to FS9 and call the same class libraries (DLLs) that it uses to determine what is going on. The easiest would be to poll a file or files ever few milliseconds to determine real time data -- if such a file(s) exists (however one has to manage the CPU load introduced). If anyone has VS 2005 (or prior version), you can actually debug an Active Process like FS9.EXE if you so desire -- there is no debug information obviously so you'll need to know assembler.3. From what I've read about FS X, it appears that MS will make 3rd party integration easier, not more difficult. I'm betting on XML files and better hooks into the core.I've got a few projects lined up for FS X and it certainly seems like a viable PC market to earn some $$$ in my spare time. I believe FS 2004 sales have been reported to be over 600,000 units in the US alone. The only unfortunate reality is that console games out sold PC games by a ratio of 5 to 1 according to the ESA data.Fortunatley the world of flight sim just doesn't fit well into the Console market -- this is actually a good thing as fewer and fewer title are available on the PC, the PC migrates itself to higher level of user -- often a user with more patients and money to spend on 3rd party value added add-ons.Rob.

[Guest garwig2]

>>3. From what I've read about FS X, it appears that MS will>make 3rd party integration easier, not more difficult. My personal concern is not how difficult it would be for 3rd partiers, but that some of them might decide they don't want to write a new version for FSX. No FSUIPC, no AFCAD, no TrafficTools ...then where would we be? :(

[Guest jrobert]

>My personal concern is not how difficult it would be for 3rd>partiers, but that some of them might decide they don't want>to write a new version for FSX. No FSUIPC, no AFCAD, no>TrafficTools ...then where would we be? :(Well, in a case like that, the only thing I can say is that we'd all just have to wait until the next ambitious developer is not only capable but willing to create those kinds of tools for FSX. My best bet is that AFCAD will probably no longer be around. I've been e-mailing Lee Swordy (the creator of AFCAD and traffic tools) for over a year now with no reply. With no new versions of any of those tools over the past 14+ months, my take is that he probably discontinued development of those particular tools.FSUIPC is a different story. Pete Dowson maintains his forum quite well and he stays in contact with people throughout the flight sim community. I'm quite confident that when Pete decides to retire, he'll decide how best to keep FSUIPC going. (Perhaps by selling his FSUIPC code to someone else or by making it -God forbid- open-source software.) What ever he decides to do, I'm sure FSUIPC will be with us for a good while to come.Regards,Joshua Robertson (creator of FS Real Time)3D Softworks Design Studioshttp://www.3dsoftworks.net

[Guest robains]

I seriously doubt FSX will scare away future 3rd party developers. 600,000 US units and 1.2 million units combine world wide -- even if only 50,000 out 1.2 million buy 3rd party add-ons. If delivery is via downloads (zero publishing costs) at $20 per unit for the Add-on = $1,000,000 US.I'm a developer and it would take me 5 years to earn that much so there is definitely an incentive for 3rd party add-ons. Since FSUIPC is so widely used I would surely expect at least 50,000 units sold, but I doubt Pete will chim in -- I wish he would.Rob.

[Guest jrobert]

>but I doubt Pete will chim in -- I wish he>would.>>Rob.>What do you mean by "chim in"? I never heard that phrase before.Regards,Joshua Robertson (creator of FS Real Time)3D Softworks Design Studioshttp://www.3dsoftworks.net

[Guest Bell206freak]

Quote:+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++My best bet is that AFCAD will probably no longer bearound. I've been e-mailing Lee Swordy (the creator of AFCADand traffic tools) for over a year now with no reply. With nonew versions of any of those tools over the past 14+ months,my take is that he probably discontinued development of thoseparticular tools.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Either that, or he's no longer "with us" in a spiritual sense, which I hope isn't the case...I've often wondered why development of AFCAD left off at 2.21. Not only is it annoying to get greeted by a "Your version of AFCAD is more than 20 months old" pop-up every now and then, but IMHO AFCAD is one of the best, if not THE best airport modification-creation tool out there. I say that because it has a user interface that totally blows SceneGenX out of the water and you can literally get a sense of what you're doing. It's also easy to get the coordinates of objects you plan on placing quite easily in AFCAD. I use AFCAD almost exclusively in developing airport scenery, and in "Project Washington Overhaul" every airport I "revamped" was redone in AFCAD.Sure, it lacks the features of SceneGenX and other programs like EZ Scenery (which I never really understood why there was so much hype about it; I mean, I would rather test, retest, and test again, rather than "do it in one shot"), but I believe that it's an exceptional program.I would love to see a version of AFCAD or an identical counterpart for FSX.