Pete Dowson

Sorry, I don't know everything, and I don't have every accessory there is. I think I do have a copy of PSS A320 here, but I've never had time to install it. No, FSUIPc can't really have any affect on such things. As I said, they probably only use FSUIPC for TCAS. If I am asked for a key for freeware and provded the information, yes, of course. But, again, does his panel use FSUIPC? I'm sure that there aren't many that do. I think that is wrong. whether things work with FS2004 or not is not just a matter of FSUIPC support, or, for many products, not EVEN a matter of FSUIPC support, as they don't use it. For me to imply that something will work with FS2004 when I haven't seen it do so and when its own publisher hasn't announced it will would be very wrong of me, and, worse, make it look like programs that had no access keys would not work, which is even more wrong. Sorry, but in each and every instance your recourse is to the author or publisher, as it always has been. Why do you think it would be any different now? Please do NOT try to make me into some sort of regulator. That is completely wrong and false! I cannot comment on that. It really has no place in public discussion. If you register your copy of FSUIPC it would be totally irrelevent to you in any case. If you don't, then you need to wait for appropriate announcements and releases from publishers in any case. And since they have at least to test their products out with FS2004, and very likely make changes in any case -- whether they use FSUIPC or not -- I can't see that there's any alternative anyway. :x Pete

Sorry, I don't understand where the discrepancy comes in. Where are you setting the surface visibility, and how does FSUIPC come into it? Where are you setting these "upper and lower altitudes"? Is this all in WeatherSet or WeatherSet2? You really would miss some of the best improvements in FS2004 if you achieved this. The experience of ascending above a low level murk into clear visibility yet still see the ground below only through the murk is much more realistic to me. This is why I didn't do all the work needed for the old FSUIPC graduated visibility, it just seemed a total waste of time and to spoil the god new effects in FS2004. Regards, Pete

Okay, got it! Sorry, I must have missed it. Many apologies. Key on its way. Pete

I've got no requests outstanding from Friday or Saturday. What's your name and email address (can't see it here)? I'll check what I've processed. If it is lost you'll need to send another -- check you used the right email address for me. I'm responding as I can, and am managing to keep within a few hours excepting overnight. Regards, Pete

WideFS default was changed to TCP/IP a while back, because that's what most folks use. But I forgot to take the UseTCPIP=No parameter out of the default INI files until someone mentioned it was still defaulting to IPX/SPX. Really, when updating versions you are usually better off keeping your old INI files. Glad it's all working now anyway. Regards, Pete

Judging by the receipts they are sending me, they are still operating, at least this morning. It is VERY odd you getting that "trouble" message -- it looks like a mistake, and that actually should have been the message giving you the keys. If I were you I'd report to that trouble place now, saying exactly what you've just said to me. Okay? Regards, Pete

The WideServer log says it thinks it is not registered. Is the "Register WideFS" button in FSUIPC greyed out or still active? If the latter, then it isn't registered. If you send me the FSUIPC.LOG I can check things from there. Regards, Pete

Not that I know of. There never was for previous releases, at least that I ever knew about. But if you register FSUIPC, most should stand a very good chance. It really depends how much involved they are with things specific to particular FS implementations, like multiplayer, which is different, AFD (airport facility data) files, which are different, and so on. Pete

Sounds more like WideClient problems? So, have you told the Server ot use IPX/SPX instead? It defaults to TCP/IP. In that case you most definitely have not edited the Client's INI file to tell it to use IPX/SPX either. Please check the doumentation. Regards, Pete

That is really strange! I just can't understand how repeating it makes any difference. I am going to get to the bottom of this if it kills me! It is very annoying -- I just cannot make anything fail here, excepting the bsiness with accented characters which is fixed in 3.01, with new keys. :cry: Pete

You need not register FSUIPC if you do not need any of its additional user facilities and you do not need to run any un-accredited programs on the same PC as FS (including any aircraft panels which may use FSUIPC). A registered copy of WideFS (actually it is only the Server which is registered) will support clients, and every client serviced by it will support all compatible programs. Regards, Pete

If you still get problems with 3.01, send me the details (your registration email included) and I'll make new keys for you to try. Sorry -- some of the problem was in the FSUIPC side, some in the generator of the keys. It doesn't affect many users, but it is annoying nonetheless. Thanks for your patience. Send to petedowson@btconnect.com. But try 3.01 first. Regards, Pete

Yes, acceptable, no, no problems. In fact, to make it easier, if they're on the same PC you can simply register on one and make a copy of the resulting FSUIPC.KEY file in the other's Modules folder. You can't do that between PCs though. Regards, Pete

I didn't know it used FSUIPC, but if it does there are two ways: 1. Register your installation of FSUIPC 3. Then everything will work in any case. Or, 2. Wait till PSS provide an update with an automatic key, or possibly publish a key on their website or wherever. But supposing PSS don't want to agree on a license wih me (I'm not saying this is the case). Your only option then is #1. Is that clear? The announcements and the documentation all say this. Of course, it may be that the PSS A320 won't work on FS2004 without an update for it in any case. FSUIPC cannot be used for all the things that aircraft do. In fact I suspect the only thing they use in FSUIPC is the TCAS data. Access keys for programs are the responsibility of the program developers or suppliers. I could help out for "defunct" ownerless applications, especially freeware which is not being developed, if I am given the details. But essentially it is up to the supplier/developer. Regards, Pete

Is your copy of FSUIPC registered? Is the Flight Monitor accredited? Look at the FSUIPC Log. Pete

As far as I know, FSNav is completely independent of FSUIPC. It doesn't use it at all. FSNav is a separate add-in module, as it has always been. If you have problems with it I suggest you ask the author. I don't believe there is an FS2004 version released yet, so if it is FS2004 you are trying it under I'd be surprised if it works at all. Regards, Pete

And I replied to it this morning with an Access Key: Program name : squawkbox.exe Company: None Product Name : SquawkBox 2.3 Key = LWVQ 7I2V 9GPB The reason for the delay was that it was not obvious that "None" was the actual content of that field, or Fabio was simply saying it was empty. It's any two out of the three, just in case one was really empty. Pete

You need to register for all user options. Without registration FSUIPC is all the original FS6IPC used to be, an interface for external programs. Please check the announcements and the description of what you get, what you don't get, in the documentation. Regards, Pete

Since Squawkbox is FreeWare it is perfectly entitled to interface correctly to a non-registered FSUIPC. The trouble is that, if it is not maintained and no one is "looking after it", as it were, then no one will presumably send me the details so I can generate an Access Key for it. If someone here would like to send me the data I need to make the key, I will publish it for manual entry. What I need is: 1. The EXE name 2. The contents of these 3 fields of the Version data (right click on the EXE in Explorer, then select Properties-Version): (a) Company (b) Product Name © File Description I need at least two of these three to contain something, and I need the contents of those accurately. Thanks Pete

As per announcements, and the doumentation: What you get if you don't register: an interface for accredited application programs. What you get if you do register: full user facilities plus an interface for all programs whether accredited or not. BTW, I assume you are talking about FS2002? FSUIPC doesn't provide that user facility on FS2004 as there's such an option built into FS I believe. Regards, Pete

There should be two separate and different keys, one for FSUIPC and one for WIDEFS. The same one will not work for both. If you paid for both keys then all I can suggest is that you send me the details (the email) to petedowson@btconnect.com, along with your FSUIPC.KEY file and FSUIPC.LOG, both from the Modules folder. Regards, Pete

Well for the SimMarket payments it is done by them for me, but even so, I expect the SimMarket folks also take breaks now and then, and probably sleep more at night than I do at present! They promise the key within 24 hours. I don't really think you can expect a 30 minute turn-a-round every time. Regards, Pete

No bug. Please read the announcements, or even the beginning of the FSUIPC User Guide. If you don't register, you can only run accredited programs. Accredited programs have access keys. I supply access keys to developers or suppliers on request, and they are free for freeware programs. No one has requested one for Squawkbox yet. I cannot generate keys from thin air, I need data about the programs. I am not a Squawkbox user so I don't even have the program. So, it is no use you "waiting for a better version". Sorry. Pete

This is with FS2002 or FS2004? I really don't know what's going on there - those offsets are pointing to somewhere is transient structures created by SIM1.DLL. However, if you can explain some time to me exactly what they are, what they are for, and so on, I'll see about documenting them and including them in the formal IPC interface. But in a few weeks, please, I'm inundated at present! Regards, Pete

Hmmm. Yes. I must do something about that -- it should not really repeat the same messages all the time. It needs to log the fact that the program cannot be accepted, but it shouldn't do it continuously. I'll fix that in the first update, in a couple of weeks. I really must do the SDK first. Thanks for the report! Regards, Pete