Pete Dowson

For GSPout to work in FS2002 you also need FSUIPC installed. FSUIPC corrects some aspects of FS2002 which GPSout needs. However, since WideFS also needs FSUIPC I assume you have it installed already. If so, then GPSout will already be sending messages on your COM port, whichever you told it to in GPSout.ini. It could well be your map programs which need configuring to suit the GPS options and COM baud rate (line speed) you've set in GPSout.ini. Most real GPS's are set to use 4800 bps by default (this is the NMEA-stipulated default), so start there, and try the various sentences. Check the documentation for the map programs, see how to configure the GPS input correctly. Regards, Pete

Yes :-) Yes, WideFS is used to link FS to FS applications across a Network. That is what it does. Whatever FS applications you have, if they interface to FSUIPC on the FS PC, they will also work across the Network under WideFS. No confusion so far ... No, there you go completely wrong. GPSout is absolutely nothing to do with WideFS. There;s no sense of "Server" and "Client" here. GPSout is simply a little module which sends out NMEA 0183-compatible messages through your chosen COM port (NOT a Network), which can be read through a COM port input on any other computer (even palmtop or MAC or anything). The PC+FS+GPSout combination emulates a real genuine GPS, sending out the same messages on the COM port as a real GPS does. There are many map and atlas programs which will accept input from a GPS, on a COM port, and plot the moving vehicle you are in. Your PC+FS+GPSout system isn't really moving, but the messages say it is, so that's what the mapping programs accept. You are only way off base by mentioning WideFS, which is nothing to do with it. WideFS extends the FSUIPC interface for programs written especially for FS and interfacing to it via FSUIPC. There are mapping programs which do this, NAV3 by Ted Wright, for instance. But Delorme do not write any Flight Sim programs, and Microsoft have not so far written any mapping programs for FS either. The program you mention probably have interfaces in them to allow outputs form GPS devices to connect in them, so they can be used for navigation in a moving vehicle -- car or aircraft, etc. My GPSout module just takes advantage of that and uses the same connection. (I say "probably" because I do not know those programs. I know Autoroute and Jeppesen Flitemap have GPS input facilities, but I don't know all programs). You need to understand how the program you are using for the map wants its input connection, then configure GPSout to suit, just as you would configure your GPS. Pete

I have checked into the PayPal system (http://www.paypal.com) and it seems they offer several ways to pay as well as credit cards. Regards, Pete

You are mixing up two completely different and separate things. WideFS operates FS applications across a Network -- i.e applications written SPECIFICALLY to interface to FS. GPSout is simply making the whole FS PC simulate a GPS unit with serial (COM port) output, so that any old programs which can accept genuine GPS output, from a real GPS, can be fooled into accepting similar output from FS. There is no relationship whatsoever between the simple serial port link used by GPSout (and real GPS's), and a Network. You can use any available COM port on one PC and any available COM port on the other, provided that neither are being used for anything else. Neither end has any idea what the other end is plugged into. Windows "direct connection" will use the COM ports for a Network connection. GPSout cannot use a Network connection. It is simulating a humble GPS, with a simple serial output. It just shovels data out at the Baud rate (speed) you set in its INI file. At the other end you have a COM port receiving data and the map program or wharever configured to read the correct data at the same speed. TCP/IP is a Network protocol and is nothing to do with the serial link used by GPSout. If this is all you installed WideFS for, remove it and discard it. It is totally irrelevant. and only serving to confuse you. I really don't know how you could have gathered from any of my documentation that there was any relationship at all between these two totally different applications. :-( Regards, Pete

I think this is documented, but in case not, here goes: WideClient maintains a memory map of all of the locations ever requested since it started running. When the values are requested by the client applications, it gets data from there and gives it to the client in a direct response. If there are data items which have not been requested before, it also sends appropriate requests to WideServer, whilst supplying the default value in its memory to the applications (this would be zero). There is an option in the INI ("WaitForNewData") which actually stops this return until WideServer has sent the newly requested data -- this is actually enabled by default with a 500 mSec timeout. See the DOC. Except for Write requests from clients, the Network traffic is totally controlled by WideServer, which maintains details of all data items requested by each client, separately, and monitors these for changes. This latter is done at FS frame rates. Only changes are sent out. If a connection dies or closed, the list for that client is cleared (by both ends) and the process starts over. No. It doesn't really matter, but if you are operating something graphical to run at FS speeds then you probably should try to match average frame rates, for smoothness of your displays. WideServer works better if you limit FS's frame rates to a bit less than its average performance in any case (as documented), so you would, say, set the FS limiter to 35 or 30 or 25 fps (according to processor) and poll WideClient at that sort of frequency. Of course, if your program does a lot of processing or heavy graphics, or is sharing the client PC with other such applications, you might not be able to or want to achieve such a frequency. Really, since WideClient is supplying these from memory, directly, there's no benefit from splitting them like this. WideServer will be sending all the changes anyway. You'll just be skipping some. 100mSecs is only 10 fps, which would be too slow for smooth graphics. Project Magenta achieves FS frame rates quite easily, even with up to half a dozen client PCs running it. See the Jet Cockpit at PFC (http://www.flypfc.com). You don't have any control over the Network operations, excepting how you write things. Certainly you should optimise writes. Don't keep writing the same values to the same places, only write what you need to write, and don't write that frequently that things bog down. But when you are reading you are not affecting anything on the Network. Provided you don't actually ask for any data you don't need (for once you have it will be monitored for changes and all changes sent), then it doesn't matter. Of course, if your program is also supposed to run well on the FS PC you have to consider the affect you may have on FS's performance. But there's a lot of other factors there apart from calling the IPC interface. Regards, Pete

You really do need to go back and read my announcement and most of the other times I have to repeat the same thing. FSUIPC will still be available to all and will work with all accredited add-ons. The end user doesn't have to pay for FSUIPC in order to make add-ons work, provided those add-ons have an access key. In many cases the add-on will install FSUIPC and it will just work, no different form what happens now. You just won't have so many options to deal with in FSUIPC so installed, that's all. How many more times do I have to say the same thing? :-( Regards, Pete

Okay, so should I remove the user facilities from both so that they become just FS interfaces for applications and nothing more? Most of the facilities have been added through USER demand or request, certainly not from developer requets. Developers want control over things in FS, or information from FS. That is not really wahat users ask for, that is invisible to them. Nowadays, in FSUIPC, much more code is devoted to user facilities than to the interface, and judging by requests outstanding this is set to grow further. No, he needs none at all. You evidently have not read much of what I've written, or not understood it. If this is my fault for poor explanation I apologise. But please look back. Each accredited add-on application is either freeware or is payware and has an agreement with me of some sort. That's its license. The user (pilot) only has to pay if he want the facilities I offer to users, he only has to purchase accedited add-ons if he want accredited add-ons to work. There is no way FSUIPC controls any functionality in application programs. It either offers an interface to them into FS or it doesn't. You seem to be completely misunderstanding the function of FSUIPC. Regards, Pete

I'm always talking to Microsoft. One of my wish lists for them a year ago was that they took this stuff over so I could get some rest! Don't forget they are a very small team in a gigantic company. They really have no influence on policies, but they can sure turn out some good productwait till you see FS2004! Pete

Need the actual CDs first, unfortunately. Then my wife, who's birthday it is very soon, is dragging me off the Cornwall for a few days, to visit the "Eden Project" down there. It'll be a break, for which I'm thankful, but it looks like coming slap bang just as the CDs might arrive! Ah well ... Best regards, Pete

I'm not sure if there is any way that the agencies which I will have to appoint to deal with this can accept other mehods. Did you check whether PayPal has methods other than credit cards? Certainly I could accept cash (in note form) to the equivalent value, as I can probably get it exchanged at normal bureaux de change. For such small amounts I think this is probably the best way, even if a little risky. Non-sterling cheques for small amounts just are not worth it, they cost far too much to process and will be wasted completely. I think the same might go for international money orders. In Europe it is a great pity that the "Eurocheque" system died, as it was by far the easiest for postal purchases. Maybe Britain will one day enter the Euro domain and it will be easier again. I'm ready to take advice here, and do what I can, but I don't think I should publish anything like that generally, at least until it is VERY clear how to do what. There's no panic yet, do not fret please. Regards, Pete

I win either way. If it pays for my time I can and will continue, gladly. If it doesn't and sometime else takes over, I can do something else AND maybe even get some spare time too! I am not short of ways of earning money, believe me, I turn away folks. It is just that I wanted to be able to continue FSUIPC and the other things and it has proven to be a full time job for three years already, so I really don't see that changing. By all means encourage someone else to do it all, I'll gladly withdraw. Perhaps if I withdraw now and don't release FSUIPC 3 this will encourage such an alternative development more quickly. Is this what every one wants? It is starting to make me very sad that I appear to have wasted three years of my life already. Perhaps no more? Pete

Please see the documentation, where it says: "These optionally define delays, in seconds, to be executed after the corresponding RunReady parameter, above." See the word "after"? The facility is intended only to separate multiple loads. There is no point in a delay for a single program being loaded. It achieves nothing. What are you trying to do with it anyway? I added this to separate some programs which take a while to initialise and seem to take far too long when starting together -- several components of Project Magenta on the same PC, for example, or FSMeteo and Radar Contact on the same PC. I really see no point in delaying the first and only program being loaded. The "Ready" action already stops it loading till FS is ready. Regards, Pete

As I've said several times already, Freeware addons will work without you paying anything at all once there developers have applied for and received a free access key. There is no way I am going to try to extract money for use of free add-ons. you shouldn't think so little of my efforts. Personally I could accept cash and cheques, but in the latter case only in UK pounds for such small amounts. The main payment method will, however, have to be set up to work in the same way as the donation system was. I cannot run such an operation and find time to program at the same time! Pete

What's the GPL? Well, the way it is all programmed is that any application wanting services from FSUIPC needs a Key. How that key gets in the hands of the application is subject to the license, or agreement, or whatever you like to call it, between its developer or manufacturer, and me. For freeware that agreement will probably always be an arrangement to get free access keys for as long as the application remains free. Whether that needs keys which expire now and then and so need renewing, or can work with everlasting keys, really depends on the plausibility of the freeware status and some knowledge of the bona fides of the developer and/or manufacturer. Clearer? Regards, Pete

Not until the arrangements are a bit firmer. Sorry. I wouldn't worry though, really. Regards, Pete

You are misunderstanding, and mis-judging, my intentions and the efforts I have been making to ensure that al this is as fair to all that I can make it. Please think better of me if you can. Freeware programs will have a free access key to FSUIPC. Payware programs will have an access key when licensed (i.e. for a fee). The user only has to pay anything towards FSUIPC if he wants to use any of its options and facilities. It is those which have taken most of the time and effort and look like continuing to do so, once particular problems in different FS internals have been conquered. I already have a growing list of new features folks have asked for -- things like better axis assignments, finer axis calibration points (i.e. more than min/centre/max), and so on. I hope to add these over the life of Version 3. These would complement the existing keypress and button programming and joystick calibration options. All these facilities, as they are added, are what Users pay for. The *side* benefit of User purchase is that FSUIPC will then also instantly work with all add-ons, even old otherwise defunct unlicensed ones. Sorry you won't actually buy it, but if you use none of its facilities that is fully understandable, and exactly how it is intended to work. Regards, Pete

No, you misunderstand. The user pays for user facilities. The payware developer pays for the FS access he needs to FS. That will work for accredited programs no matter whether the user pays for FSUIPC or not. Freeware programs will get free access. If the user does not need any of the options and facilities in FSUIPC he does not need to purchase it. When he installs an add-on which uses FSUIPC and is licensed for it, that add-on will work. Believe me, I have thought through all the implications very thoroughly and devised the fairest system to all that I can. Well, believe me, that too is a win! If I do not have to spend any more time on any of my erstwhile free programs, I can do other things, probably more profitable. I may even find time to do some flying and even finish my model railway. I cannot lose. If it pays for my time, it continues, if it doesn't it dies and we all get to use something else instead. Please yourself. If I get a really substantial majority vote this way, I will scrap FSUIPC now and not bring out FSUIPC version 3 or any new versions of any of the other modules. If that's what every one wants, so be it. The sooner I know this the better so I can get on with other things. Life is too short to waste for too long! Regards, Pete

Sorry, but if my income from other sources had dried up a year ago, I would have taken this step then. It is the change in my circumstances that have forced this, it is nothing to do with FS2004. The onset of FS2004 is just a useful point to do it, coming a few months after my income suddenly and unexpectedly dried up. I have spent almost all my waking hours for three years on FSUIPC and associated FS add-ons. I hardly spare time to fly. It was a hobby and a pleasing one because it was interesting and fulfilling. However, when the choice came between stopping work on FSUIPC and the other modules so I could work on something which would give me some income, or making FSUIPC somehow pay its way, I opted for the latter. Would you rather I stopped? I could have done. I still can do, if that's really what folks want. Should I call for a vote on this? Please try to be fair. I *hate* having to take this step. It looks like it will turn a pleasant hobby into a dreadful drudge. And having folks sneer and snipe at me for doing so makes it worse. I really don't need it. Regards, Pete Dowson

Taking the last question frst, whether it is negative or positive is the way you look at it. It is a 32 bit value. In hexadecimal it is FDCD6A2A, As a signed value it would be the -36869590 you quote. But if you view it as unsigned it is a much larger positive number. FSInterrogate can show you both interpretations if you like. In computers values are like that -- you can treat them in many different ways. In this case you should really be treating is as an undgned, and therefore positive, 32-bit integer. However, whether you want to treat it as signed or unsigned is really irrelevant in this case -- as far as the Heading is concerned a value of -10 is the same as +350. It's a circle after all with no beginning, no end. If the value you arrive at is outside the range 0-359, just adjust it by 360's until it looks right. So, according to my calculator (-36869590 * 360) / (65536 * 65536) = -3.09 which is the very same identical heading as +356.91. If you don't believe that go look at a compass rose and think about it. Just think anti-clockwise for negative, clockwise for positive. If you prefer just to deal in positive numbers, just read the heading into an UNSIGNED integer variable and do the calculations on that. You'll get 356.9 then without messing with adding 360. All this method of storing compass values (which is an FS convention) is designed to do is to allow the most accurate value possible to be stored in the 32 bits available. So, the biggest possible direction (359.99999... degrees) occupies all of the bits (hex FFFFFFFF). Add 1 to this and you'd get the value representing 360 degrees which is the same as 0 degrees, and zero in the 32 bits. So, a 1 in the (non-existent) 33rd bit represents the non-existent value 360. The divisor in the conversion, 65536*65536 is actually just a 1 in that 33rd bit (hex 100000000), but you cannot store that value in a normal 32 bit integer, which is why it is easier to divide by 65536 twice. I suppose I've succeeded in confusing you more by now. But just think about it a while. It really is very simple, and it works. Pete

FSUIPC doesn't actually do much on FS98, it is mostly just a transparent interface. FS6IPC is the same as FSUIPC on FS98. There are exceptions. Many of the facilities I've added which are local to FSUIPC, not related to FS in particular, will work on FS98. Joystick calibration and button and key programming should work -- though you'd have to edit this in the INI. As far as FS variables are concerned, don't forget that the memory map supported by FSUIPC was designed explicitly to make FS2000 and later look like a superset of FS98. In FS98 the Globals in offsets 0000-1FFF were in those positions, in those units. That was the whole point of FSUIPC. Therefore, the FSUIPC SDK *IS* the SDK for FSUIPC, it is NOT FS-dependent! Pete

Not in FSUIPC, at least not at present. It is an interesting idea, and something I'd be willing to consider for a future update to FSUIPC -- I'm seriously thinking of adding axis assignment and scaling, etcetera, facilities in any case. Remind me later in the year. I really won't be able to consider any changes will well after FS2004 release. Pete

Sorry, there's no fix for that that I know of. You can only see if there are any video settings which will deal with it, though I never found any. I think it is supposed to be smoothed, giving a gradual change of sky colour. This was okay in FS2000 but, like most of the visibility facilities, this area certainly took a big step backwards in FS2002. Look forward to FS2004! Really there's no way FSUIPC can fix problems with video imaging. I really would have no idea how to do it in any case. All FSUIPC can do is influence the data placed into FS and read out of it. In fact this is really its prime function -- interfacing third party applications to FS. It was never intended to be Microsoft's bug fixer! Pete

I am the same, though I started with a unipunch making holes individually in paper tape in order to bootstrap code into prototype mainframes -- back in 1963, when I started as an engineering test programmer! Since then I mostly used whatever assembly code was appropriate for each mainframe I needed to write stuff for. I did have a brief encounter with Fortran, but it didn't last long. When personal computing started in the late 70's my first non-homebuilt one was a Commodore Pet and that came with MS Basic built into the firmware. That's how I came to experience a bit of Basic, but I soon got into 6502 assembler. On the Apple I used Pascal a bit, but mostly 6800 assember. I used BCPL for quite some time (a precursor to C) before changing to C, but even then still used 68000 assembler on computers like the Sinclair QL and Commodore Amiga. C is really as far removed from the real computer as I like to get. The convoluted machine level code which C++ produces frankly horrifies me! Like you, I have to boil it down to structs and functions or procedures anyway. Best, Pete

They need no conversion. They are in standard Intel 32-bit floating point format. Just read then into variables defined as such. I don't know C# or VB, but in C and C++ this is the "float" type. The Lat/Long are in degrees (with West and South negative, East and North positive), whilst the Altitude is in feet. This is exactly as documented in the Programmer's Guide, where even a suitable structure declaration for C or C++ is provided. Please check there. Pete