FSUIPC for FSX

[MD83 1]

>>>>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.I agree http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/Dar...0/checkmark.gif

[aerdt 0]

My bet is that there is already a beta IPC from MS. PMDG and other developers have already started coding FSX add-ons, so most likely they are already using a beta SDK/IPC along with a beta FSX from MS.Pat

[rhumbaflappy 113]

Hi Carmine.I think we all GET the point you are making. But the fact remains there are tons of planes and applications that already rely on FSUIPC to run on FS2002 and FS2004... and if these are to still work in FSX, then FSUIPC will need an update. These addons could have cost hundreds of dollars to simmers.Otherwise you are advocating simmers to replace all their addon planes and tools when a new interface becomes available... at the cost of hundreds of more dollars.For FS2004, there are 2 other alternatives to FSUIPC:FSConnect and FDSConnection.And, of course, someone could program their own IPC.Tools or aircraft using these other DLLs will also probably not work in FSX unless those IPCs are updated for the new sim version.I have lobbied for FS to have a common IPC available for several years. We'll just have too wait for the Aces team to determine the priority of that need in a future version of the simulator. Maybe this will be the version... but even if there is a common communication avenue with the sim's state data, many of our current planes and tools require FSUIPC, or a translator that mimics FSUIPC in that new avenue. If that doesn't happen, then the total loss to the simming community could be millions of dollars worth of planes and tools left useless.So whether or not there is a new "authorized" IPC for the sim, FSUIPC still needs updating, for the greater good of the community.That's why I hope Peter Dowson will update FSUIPC for FSX. Dick

[Guest Vorlin]

Hmmmm, the way I see it there are two decent possibilities.1) MS may branch in a direction that will allow FSUIPC to be phased out over a couple of releases that have both the new interface and support of FSUIPC related hooks.2) If there is still a need for FSUIPC in FSX and beyond then Pete could still get some relief from others and avoid the whole issue of someone holding the FS word hostage over FSUIPC by taking it over to sourceforge and opening a project under the GPL.Let's face it, what Pete has built over the years is too large and complex for any individual or few people to duplicate in a short time. By going open source under the GPL and assigning himself as the project manager, Pete can get a little help from each person and have many people helping... which adds up to a lot of help and still allows Pete to ensure that the direction and quality of FSUIPC are maintined because he'd still be directing the project.The only issue there is that under the GPL no one could charge money for it. So, this is something that Pete should only do once he has recouped enough to cover his years of investment, if that's even possible.Scott / Vorlin

[Guest EdrickV]

FYI, GPL doesn't mean you can't charge money for it, it just means you have to make the source code available too and make sure the user knows that. There's a bit more too it, but when it comes to GPL stuff "Free software" means free as in freedom, not as in price. However, someone who paid money to get GPL software could then give that software to their friends for free legally. So usually what you get are companies giving the software away but charging for support. (Even RedHat's expensive "Enterprise Linux" can be downloaded, in source code form, from their FTP site.)I'm a little more worried about TTools/AFCAD then FSUIPC."Let me help you out. You're cleared to taxi any way you can to any runway you see."

[Guest]

The problem with GPL is that you also need to release the source of EVERYTHING that uses a GPL module in any way.So if an alternative to FSUIPC were released under GPL any addon using that module would have to be GPL as well.That's the crux, and that's the reason many people and companies won't touch anything that even hints to GPL with a very long pole.The risks are way too great that you're in some way infected by GPL and loose your entire investment.

[Guest EdrickV]

That's what LGPL is for. (Lesser GNU Public License)"Let me help you out. You're cleared to taxi any way you can to any runway you see."

[Guest]

yup, but you specifically talked about GPL :)Personally I prefer Apache style licenses, they at least give you an option to not disclose your custom hacks and workarounds that might give crackers insight into the way your application that you needed to create those hacks for works.

[russdirks 0]

>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.Hi Dick and others,As of version 3.00, I've changed the license agreement to allow developers to package and distribute FSConnect with their product. The license now reads as follows:You may use FSConnect.dll as an interface between FS and your application. You may use and adapt any source code in this package for use in your application. You may package and distribute FSConnect.dll with your product, with appropriate credits in your documentation, including a reference to my web site, www.dirks-software.ca.Regards,Russ Dirks

[csimons 7]

Users of Flight Simulator should not have to rely on a 3rd party payware application to fix problems that should have been addressed by Microsoft. I hope this isn

[LAdamson 240]

>Users of Flight Simulator should not have to rely on a 3rd>party payware application to fix problems that should have>been addressed by Microsoft. I hope this isn

[Guest B1900 Mech]

This discussion does not make me feel very good with my thousands of dollars invested in flightsim hardware:(

[Guest gibaholic]

I have been developing apps that use flight sim data for 6 years now ... company paid for ... Yes I get paid to do this stuff. The current methods to get flight sim data is aweful at best( gauges, pipes, IPC ). It makes some nasty looking code. Third party developers would be much better off if there were an intuative, efficent method to get data, not relying on the use of FSUIPC. Which I only used recently when I had to incorporate another divisions box into my simulation ( they used fsuipc ). The Peter Dawson and the origional creator of FS6IPC deserve a pat on the back for providing an easier to use interface than the FS sdk. However, FSUIPC was only needed because the FS SDK did not provide the right kind of hooks to the data. I hope they change this for FSX...of course I will have to rewrite some code, but if the interface is easier to use and is more efficent, it will be worth it.I would love to see FSX provide pointers to the data, or shove it all out to shared memory. That would make it so easy to develop for, it would likely result in many more 3rd party apps. I am mainly speaking of aircraft data, traffic data, since I that is my primary concern to drive real avionics, I have not needed to deal with ATC or the scenery SDKs.

[Guest tdragger]

It's called SimConnect.

[Guest jbrians]

FSX will provide a programming interface we call "SimConnect" that provides the vast majority of funtionality FSUIPC provides, as well as some additional stuff. So current and future addon developers will be able to function without relying on FSUIPC. For backwards compatability, though, it will be up to Pete if he wants to implement a new version.