The need of FSUIPC

[The_glideslope]

Mr. Dowson.

I've been an active user of FSUIPC in the last editions. I purchased the FSUIPC 3 edition and was happy with it, specially regarding my need to have an interface with a second PC as well as the advanced joystick calibration and anys/keys assignments which I find extremely usefull.

With this, I want to say that I didn't believe I wasted money in vain with the FSUIPC3 for FS2004. In no way.

But, all of us who read your forum threads and others, must come up with the notion that FSUIPC4 not only fails to reach the level of features of the previous edition (regarding weather settings, etc), which I believe you will correct in future versions, but also that FSUIPC for FSX is somehow redundant with the new Simconnect feature.

According to my own readings in the Simconnect dedicated SDK files, I get the idea that the interface features are already there.

So where does FSUIPC comes in, now?

In my view, FSUIPC is just placing itself between the already established Simconnect network facilities. Therefore, when someone reads the SDK and takes advantage of this new feature, I predict FSUIPC to be completely redundant.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but why should I buy FSUIPC if Simconnect already makes the connections between machines (TCP/IP), if it already has a SDK for future free aplications for Gauge control, etc?

Don't get me wrong, sir! I just want to justify the fact that I bought FSUIPC last year and now I would need to spend another 30 Euros in something I feel isn't THAT necessary.

To tell you the thruth I only need the excellent key/axys mapping and axys facilities, and even that is being passed by free software from the hardware developers like Saitek, CH or GoFlight.

I keep reading here that you expect patches or updates to simconnet because of Simconnect still having a hard time "talking to FSX".

If your program relies in Simconnect efficiency to make network connections, wouldn't Simconnect do the job by itself? We are led to believe so by the Beta Testers and the Developers who wrote the SDK files.

If I may, I just want you to justify me why should I buy FSUIPC4 and be sure that if I am totally wrong with the above and you garantee me that FSUIPC4 is as good as an investment as FSUIPC3 was for FS9, I WILL buy it ASAP.

Thank you, Mr. Dowson.

[Pete Dowson]

also that FSUIPC for FSX is somehow redundant with the new Simconnect feature.

Okay, that's good. I'll be able to give it up and go fly for a change! When do you think folks will stop using it so I can plan for this?

According to my own readings in the Simconnect dedicated SDK files, I get the idea that the interface features are already there.

So where does FSUIPC comes in, now?

Only in two types of role:

1. As a compatibility layer for existing applications written for FS98, FS2000, FS2002 or FS2004. This was the whole reason it was written in the first place -- not to provide facilities that FS didn't but to provide features which were (and still are) compatible across FS releases.

There have always been programs written direct to FS interfaces. FSNavigator doesn't use FSUIPC, and there are many others. The choice is the implementor's. The less that use FSUIPC and instead move to SimConnect the more pleased I will be, as it will be less hassle, less support, and best of all no need for continuous development and hacking into FS code.

Note that users do not purchase FSUIPC for any of this -- the interface for applications is either free or, for the majority of applications, paid for by the implementors or publishers.

2. The utility functions of joystick calibration, aircraft specifdic assignments if axes, buttons, keys, and so on, have actually become the predominant reason for folks actually purchasing FSUIPC. Yes, and the weather filters too, originally, but they've been made redundant already really by superb programs like Active Sky.

I don't see any reason at present for this sort of use of FSUIPC to stop, though I think it may be quite possible that someone else might do some utilities with similar functions. Since it doesn't take much "inside" knowledge of FS to do so I'm actually quite surprised there's been no real competion in this area in any case. I know individual hardware makers produce some sophisticated button and axis programming utilities, but nothing that quite covers so much nor that allow the same amount of flexibility. It's only a matter of time (and demand) I suppose.

In my view, FSUIPC is just placing itself between the already established Simconnect network facilities. Therefore, when someone reads the SDK and takes advantage of this new feature, I predict FSUIPC to be completely redundant.

Great! I look forward to it! ;-)

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but why should I buy FSUIPC if Simconnect already makes the connections between machines (TCP/IP), if it already has a SDK for future free aplications for Gauge control, etc?

You shouldn't. If you would only be using FSUIPC in its compatibility interfacing role, then don't buy it. There's really no point, you don't get a "better" interface by buying it. You get that for free. You only get the user facilities, and if you aren't interested in any of those you certainly shouldn't spend any money on it.

This isn't new. It's always been that way.

Don't get me wrong, sir! I just want to justify the fact that I bought FSUIPC last year

Why did you buy it last year? It sounds like you wasted your money then, doesn't it?

To tell you the thruth I only need the excellent key/axys mapping and axys facilities, and even that is being passed by free software from the hardware developers like Saitek, CH or GoFlight.

Oh, right. If they suit your needs why bother with FSUIPC? Save your money by all means.

If you are coming here expecting me to try to sell you something you are beng disappointed. I'm sorry. I really do look forward to the day when everything FSUIPC was needed for has been taken care of properly elsewhere. I'm not going to be doing this forever. I'm 63 now and look forward to some time flying for fun, maybe, and more holidays I hope! ;-)

Regards

Pete

[The_glideslope]

Mr. Dowson.

There's a thin line between people who make criticism look like an arrow straight to the heart and the people who wish to make an educated and fact based point to justify an investment.

I know. But believe me I belong to the last group of people. 30 Euros is a lot of money for me. And I make my investments with my mind on it. And I really don't need the sarcastic reply.

I never faced anyone who just didn't care about his/her project after being so important to some community, so I don't buy your "why bother with FSUIPC?" type of reaction. I would expect you to defend your product, not having a "I couldn't care less" reaction and actually advising me NOT to buy your product.

I am a product manager myself and I would be backrupted in no time if I was to have the same reactions to my costumers. But from your words I can understand that you don't depend on FSUIPC sales to live, but that would raise some other questions about the payware products out there which aren't called for and I don't wish to take it there.

I never said that taking advantage of Simconnect's features would be easy to work around or that FSUIPC wasn't needed. In fact that was my question all the way. I admire your work in this field. This is not mere flattering.

So, I imagined that after hearing so many people saying what I said above I should get things straight and go to the source. And I expected you to defend this 30 Euros investment.

But the tables have turned and now my question is this: Do you really want to sell FSUIPC4? If so, why don't you clear things up?

I remember when FSUIPC was free and helper simmers so much. Then you made it payware and some of us still found the investment a nice one and in some cases necessary.

But now, and from your words, I get the feeling that you don't care if I or others buy FSUIPC4. So why make it payware? If you want to make some good to the community and still justify your wasted time, I can totally agree to pay for this. I do!

I asked a simple question: Where does FSUIPC Stand?.

You answered well, and I thank you, that would be enough.

You're not saying that MY investment isn't necessary, you're saying that to EVERYONE who bought FSUIPC4.

I really am disapointed with this. Not because of what happened here, you not "selling" the product, but from the misinterpretation of my words and the fact that you used them to almost withdraw yourself from the community.

I surely didn't expect this outcome. And I apologize if you believe I was attacking you.

But with all this, my mind is made. Thank you.

I hope you continue to work on FSUIPC4 and still be able to fly.

If I was to reach your beautiful age and still be able to do what I love I would be a blessed man.

[Pete Dowson]

There's a thin line between people who make criticism

I honestly did not take it as criticism. You are right in most if not all of what you say. Why are you taking my honesty in such a way?

I really don't need the sarcastic reply.

There's nothing sarcastic there, it's the truth. I am merely stating what I know and what I feel. Why are you taking such a nasty attitude to me? I try to be honest and up front and you come back like this? Sorry, I don't understand you at all.

I would expect you to defend your product, not having a "I couldn't care less" reaction

It is not a "couldn't care less" attitude. I care very much about the quality of my programs and about the support I offer. But at the same time I want FSUIPC to be made gradually redundant I really do! This is why I visited Microsoft last year and tried my best to make sure SimConnect would (eventually) make this possible! I have been working for such an interface in FS since FS2000!

I only wrote FSUIPC in the first place so I could develop my own cockpit, which was started with FS98 and used FS6IPC. When it was offered as freeware it was taken up by so many it became a full time job. As a result I'm not actually often able to do the very thing I wrote it for in the first place! Fly!

The only reason it went to a part-payware product was because I came to a point where I couldn't otherwise continue with it as a full time "hobby". It had to earn money or be shelved. This was over three years ago, in the Beta of FS2004. I was persuaded to carry on (obviously). But it had to pay its way.

I can understand that you don't depend on FSUIPC sales to live

I did do, and it still helps a lot, but I am looking now to working out my pension payments to compensate for its eventual redundancy, as you well predicted. It's just that the longer that takes the more I can put off my pension and so the better my retirement will be.

Do you really want to sell FSUIPC4? If so, why don't you clear things up?

Yes, for the above reasons, and whilst it is still wanted or needed, whichever. But I don't know what you mean by "clear things up". Sorry.

And as for the rest of your message -- I never once thought you were attacking, and only thought to give an honest reply. If you would have preferred glib sales talk and lies, I would not have answered at all as I am not that way inclined. Sorry.

Regards

Pete

[The_glideslope]

Mr. Dowson

Thank you for being honest. I rest my case.

Harm not taken, there's an old Portuguese proverd I like to quote in these situations: "He who sees faces, does not see harts", allow me to rephrase that with "He who reads replies, does not read feelings".

Once again thank you for your excellent work for the community. Keep up the good work.

[rcbarend]

"He who reads replies, does not read feelings".

Very true indeed; if I read that right:?:

Unfortunately, written communication like in forums or Email can lead to very akward mis-interpretation of what someone is really trying to say with what he writes, or his state-of-mind when he wrote it.

Like the following example, which I wrote this week in the 5th Email to a user that was asking for support on my new FSX gauges that didn't work right for him:

...

""

I truely want to help, but you are (no doubt: undeliberately) misleading me every time :-)

""

Which I indeed wrote with a smile on my face, but appearantly was perceived as a real insult by this user.

Even intended humor can be easily understood the wrong way.

And then I'm not even talking about English not being the native language of many simmers (including me); which doesn't help either :lol:

And to Joao:

Besides what Pete replied, also don't forget that the amount of installed FSUIPC unregistered modules probably exceeds 100-times the amount of registered versions, because of all those freeware gauges that use FSUIPC and don't expect users to have a registered version.

And I expect that won't change much for FSX.

Although there now is a SimConnect interface, much of this pre-FSX stuff will still work just because Pete is still supporting the old IPC interface (now via SimConnect) in FSUIPC4 in a compatible way. Which allows me to make new versions of my freeware gauges for FSX very fast, without having to invest a lot of time in converting to the SimConnect interface myself.

For which I, and I guess many users, are very gratefull to Pete. Because he doesn't earn a penny on that part of FSUIPC.

Regards, Rob Barendregt