Guest Trev Morson Posted June 12, 2003 Report Posted June 12, 2003 Read the latest news.. on FSUIPC no longer being freeware, ..I support the idea.. seems very fair and appropriate. Keep up the good work Pete :-) Trev.
Emile Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 Hello Pete, What about the "ones" who made a donation??
jwenting Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 Emile, have you read Pete's original statement? Pricing and other details will be published when finalised, but will be very reasonable. Folks who have donated reasonable amounts already will get free registrations, but these will have to be applied for within a certain time (maybe three months). Seems clear to me, if you donated more than a token amount you should get a free license.
Guest CountGQ Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 Sadly, I must say that I am opposed to Peter's move to commercialize FSUIPC. The flightsim community generally operates on the reverse principle... when something is released as payware... it often becomes freeware a year or so later. FSFlightMax is one example. I fear that FS2004 is being used as an excuse to start charging for something that was always free beforehand. Just think if in FS2004, Microsoft announced that downloadable weather would only be available to users who paid for it. What a ludicrous idea! Sure, I want people to make a profit from their hard work, but make it payware from the onset. It's really unpopular to start charging for something that was once free.
MikeW Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 Since FSUIPC is probably the single most important addition to MSFS... (imho) It's amazing that it hasn't been payware long before this!. I have donated to Mr. Dowson's efforts and am still willing to pay additionally for this outstanding piece of software (WideFS too)! Keep up your great work Pete... Regards, Mike
Foxgolfbravo Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 Since FSUIPC is probably the single most important addition to MSFS... (imho) It's amazing that it hasn't been payware long before this!. I have donated to Mr. Dowson's efforts and am still willing to pay additionally for this outstanding piece of software (WideFS too)!Keep up your great work Pete... Regards, Mike Hi, Readback correct sir :lol: :wink:
Pete Dowson Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 Sure, I want people to make a profit from their hard work, but make it payware from the onset. It's really unpopular to start charging for something that was once free. 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
Guest fsadventures Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 I for one cannot think of a more deserving candidate to be compensated for his hard work than Pete. His work in continuing to develop FSUIPC (which was begun by Adam Szofran) has made a countless number of FS addons even work with FS2002/FS2000/FS98, a fact that escapes quite a few by the look of things. It is easy for some who have not been involved in programming to the high level required to interact directly with FS to sit back and moan about being charged what they could probably eat in one (brief) sitting at a restaurant. This without any understanding or appreciation of the time/effort/expertise required for a high-end program such as FSUIPC. People, let's not make it hard for Pete, he's been giving more to the community for *years & years* than most of us ever will and he was kind enough to explain his reasons (which many don't) for what anyone can see is a tough decision for him. Fermin http://fsadventures.net
Guest Jason R Mynn Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 I have always used your software. And i am greatfull for your efforts. Really and truely I understand the steps you must take. 2 years ago though, while I was still single I would have protested rudely. But now with a family of my own to support, I wholeheartedly agree with your decision, I believe your intentions toward the FS community are good and will continue to be. So no hard feeling here at all. Please be assured your work is greatly appreciated by the community. I hope all goes well, and be assured you have not and will not loose the respect of those who really understand what this decision is based upon and why this SHOULD BE DONE!!! :) Take care, and I look forward to obtaining your work. Jason R.
Guest Fliegerbube Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 Hi Pete! well, I understand your intention, but I disagree in this special case. I had a fido mailbox in the late 1980s (someone remembers these days?), it was getting more and more busy and more and more expensive for me. One day I had to decide to charge my users or quit. I tried to charge, a lot of people payed, but most of them didn't. So it was no success in the end, because popularity of my mailbox went away. So I had to quit anyway. FSUIPC is a "low level" tool on which many other projects depend. If you start to charge the users, you will harm the other developers who need FSUIPC to run their tools or panels. Very few people (compared to the number of users today) will pay for your work, sooner or later there will be an alternative for FSUIPC. You won't win, sad but sure. I'm using FSUIPC for a long time now, but I will stop using it. I'm waiting for the successor of it, someone will write it, it may support only a subset of FSUIPCs functionality, but it will be enough for most users. Well, you could say "okay, then go away, I don't need people like you" and you may be right with that, but I think my opinion is what most people think, so being honest to you is important. I hope I'll be wrong (yes, really!) but I'm afraid I'm not. Bye from Germany! PS: sorry, my english isn't that good, hope I made myself clear :oops:
heli Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 I have always used your software. And i am greatfull for your efforts.Really and truely I understand the steps you must take. 2 years ago though, while I was still single I would have protested rudely. But now with a family of my own to support, I wholeheartedly agree with your decision, I believe your intentions toward the FS community are good and will continue to be. So no hard feeling here at all. Please be assured your work is greatly appreciated by the community. I hope all goes well, and be assured you have not and will not loose the respect of those who really understand what this decision is based upon and why this SHOULD BE DONE!!! :) Take care, and I look forward to obtaining your work. Jason R. Hi Pete, I am TOTALY AGREE that you ask to PAY!!! You have my total respect for your GREAT work for the FS-community1 :D Keep up the GOOD WORK ........ I am the first to pay for it! A big THANKS Best regards Heli
Tsylos Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 I think one thing that needs remembering here, many payware developers have been making money (indirectly) off Peter's program for a very long time now. I think it is admirable that he's (Peter) toiled away in the background producing a freeware program at his own expense (of much time, if nothing else) while others made money with their own programs that depended on FSUIPC. Regardless of whatever other reasons Peter might have for now charging for FSUIPC (etc.), I think this aspect of his program entitles him to receive fair remuneration. As one poster said, and I wholeheartedly agree, if anyone deserves some payback, it's Peter. I am not happy with the amount of freeware going payware in FS (this is not happening with every hobby - computer based or not), and you can be very sure that I will starting choosing my add-ons with a great deal more care in ACoF, but I will purchase FSUIPC when the new version comes out - regardless of whether I purchase any other add-ons that require FSUIPC in order to function. Just call it paying back a debt. Thank you Peter. You have my full support. Glenn
Guest vicrus Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 I too believe it is appropriate for Pete to be compensated for all his hard work. Hope he makes a ton.
Guest Hunter Computers Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 Being a programmer myself, I can understand the reasons why FSUIPC is becomming payware. Since I have no intention at this time of getting FS2004 and the FSUIPC version I have works with the freeware programs I got it for I am not intending to buy the payware version of FSUIPC. If that means I end up not being able to update my 3rd party programs then I'll stick with what I have. I won't be surprised if other people do the same thing. And I think that once freeware alternatives to FSUIPC become available, then FSUIPC may no longer be a viable source of income. I think this may be only a temporary solution. If I had made FSUIPC, I probably would have made it freeware for use with freeware. In other words, if person/group/company makes a payware program that uses it they would have to pay a fee. All that aside, good luck trying to get it to work with FS2004. I've seen how cryptic and crash prone that Microsoft products can be.
bobfiegel Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 I'm pretty much on a fixed income these days, but I donated I think it was 10 bucks a while back, the best I could do at the time. That to me was inadequate considering Pete's work, no, his continuing work, on what makes much of the third party stuff tick. I don't think I'd like FS very much if t weren't for Pete's work. Change to payware/commercial? It's long overdue and I wish Pete every success with it. That had to be a very difficult decision, considering his record of dedication to constantly make things happen for developers who needed more and more capability to make their software functional, and doing it all for nothing but self-satisfaction and knowing there would be a continuing stream of requests for more work. Instead of sending a thank-you email once in a while I'll gladly pay for it like I have done the other packages that make the FS environment what it is. Thank you, Pete, for doing it all this time, and thank you for deciding to continue. Count me as one of many who wouldn't have liked the alternative of your just doing something else with your time. Bob Fiegel
Pete Dowson Posted June 13, 2003 Report Posted June 13, 2003 FSUIPC is a "low level" tool on which many other projects depend. If you start to charge the users, you will harm the other developers who need FSUIPC to run their tools or panels. 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. sooner or later there will be an alternative for FSUIPC. You won't win, sad but sure. 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. I'm using FSUIPC for a long time now, but I will stop using it. 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
Pete Dowson Posted June 14, 2003 Report Posted June 14, 2003 If I had made FSUIPC, I probably would have made it freeware for use with freeware. In other words, if person/group/company makes a payware program that uses it they would have to pay a fee. 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
Guest simuser Posted June 14, 2003 Report Posted June 14, 2003 I'll hold my tongue untill I know how much Peter will be charging for FSUIPC. :cry: . Peter, could you provide some insight into what you propose FSUIPC will cost???
alfou Posted June 14, 2003 Report Posted June 14, 2003 I'm using free FSUIPC for a few years now...I'M ready to pay fot it anytime... Thanks Pete.....keep on Alain SAC115 Canada
Pete Dowson Posted June 14, 2003 Report Posted June 14, 2003 Peter, could you provide some insight into what you propose FSUIPC will cost??? Not until the arrangements are a bit firmer. Sorry. I wouldn't worry though, really. Regards, Pete
Guest Mark Posted June 14, 2003 Report Posted June 14, 2003 Hi, I agree that payware developers should be paying Pete for the use of FSUIPC. In fact it seems odd that this hasn't happened sooner. Whether payware developers pass on the costs to their users is a business decission for them. Pete, have you considered licensing FSUIPC under the GPL for freeware developers? That we the freeware developers can use it for free and maybe even contribute fixes and enhancements. A seperate license could be used for comercial add-on. This is similar to how MySQL make their income. Cheers Mark
Pete Dowson Posted June 14, 2003 Report Posted June 14, 2003 Pete, have you considered licensing FSUIPC under the GPL for freeware developers? What's the GPL? That we the freeware developers can use it for free and maybe even contribute fixes and enhancements. A seperate license could be used for comercial add-on. 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
Guest Aerohund Posted June 14, 2003 Report Posted June 14, 2003 Pete, Thank you for your years of effort.. it's much appreciated and you have long-since been deserving of some sort of compensation. With that said - and meant.. I fear that this is going to be a tough sell to the end-users. The problem is that the end-user will end up paying for this twice - once for our own version - then again by way of our other purchased addd-on's. I suspect that the vast majority of the 3rd-party developers who are now getting a free ride on your efforts, will most certainly pass on their new additional costs for FSUIPC to us. Theoretically, we the end-user, could end up paying for this many times over, depending on our add-on buying habits. I may be very wrong, but this is already sounding complicated and it's going to be hard to fully explain to the laymen end-user, let alone to sell it. You have my support, and soon my money. I also wish you lots of luck... we'd all hate to see you starve. :lol:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now