FSUIPC Payware, I Support it.

[keattchr]

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 :-)

I have just read through the whole of this thread and have been a little angry at some of the posts. :(

Just two points to make.

1. I support your decision to go payware and feel the model you have set up for paying is more than fair.

2. As soon as its possible to pay for the product then I will be there with my credit card. The flightsim commuinity needs your excellent product and you deserve some financial reward for the effort put in.

Good luck and thank you. :D

Trev.

[Pete Dowson]

Will there be a way that people that do not have or use credit cards can purchase FSUIPC? If so, will it be made public so we can get it also?

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

[Vulcan]

In other words Gosta, you want Pete to hand you the source so you can take his work and run with it?

Because that's what frequently happens with GPL code, as I've experienced myself.

I've become quite disgusted with most of you people here screaming bloody murder when someone whose work you've used for years and years asks you to put a value to that work and you say that value is NIL, then complaining when that work is removed from your free use.

If you think it so useless that it's not worth the money, don't use it.

If you think it is, help with your money to keep it alive.

I think most if not all of you will be working overtime to find a means to crack FSUIPC once it's commercial so you can use it without paying.

Jeroen,

Apart from your first paragraph I agree with everything you say, after all Pete did give the community the chance to avoid payware but the vast majority were too mean to make a donation :roll:

Vulcan

[Vulcan]

Gosta,

I think, and hope, that jwenting's comments, apart from the first paragraph, were directed at the masses who want evrything for free and not specifically directed at you.

However it is up to Jeroen to clarify.

Rgds

[rickalty]

Hi there. I'd just like to say that I also agree with Pete's decision to start charging for FSUIPC & WideFS. Given the choice between paying for it, or having it go away because Pete can no longer afford to devote the necessary time to it without compensation, I'd rather pay.

I'd also like to comment on CountGQ's whine that it's "not fair" that we have to start paying for something that's 'always been free'. I'd like to point out to him that it wasn't "Free" - it was supported by donations. What wasn't fair was the large percentage of freeloaders who took advantage of Pete's good nature and used FSUIPC & WideFS without making a donation.

Count's parallel with MS deciding to start charging for weather is totally invalid. We already paid - a lot - for FS2002, and the weather was included in the price.

It would be interesting to see what the split for / against charging for FSUIPC is compared with the split of those who did / did not contribute. I suspect that those whose belief in their entitlement to what they want for free kept them from donating are the same ones who'll be bent out of shape by the decision to start chaging, even though it was their own failure to contribute that made the step necessary.

Even worse, of course, are those commercial software developers who made their payware dependent on FSUIPC without cutting Pete in for a share of their revenues.

As for free licences for people who did donate, that would indeed be nice - but if the price you decide to charge is more than I already donated, I'd have no problem with paying the difference.

Richard

[Pete Dowson]

if the price you decide to charge is more than I already donated, I'd have no problem with paying the difference.

Thanks for your support, but I should point out that catering for all possibilities regarding payments will not really be feasible. If the amount donated is more than a certain amount (which will be significantly less than even the initial "special offer, bargain, get it whilst it's cheap" price) then the registration will be by application to me, and I'll supply a free key, but if it is less than the normal route (probably SimMarket) to obtain a key has to be used and that will be at a fixed (but as I say, bargain) price.

Pete

[Guest Ben Hewitt]

I don't agree with it at all!. As a painter who has spent 100's of hour creating over 100 paints and as a member of a group (iFDG) who produce high quality models and freeware spend just as much time creating these things..over 500 hours as a group of 5 have went into our 767 alone and it is not ready yet....i would never think of charging, im quite dissapointed. :(

I hope that somebody with the great skills you have create something freeware that is similar to your exellent module. I can't keep shelling out for payware. :(

The think that disapoints me is that it started of as freeware now going elsewhere. If you were going to charge you should have done it from the beginning.

[Guest]

I'd just like to add that i think all the payware products that use your module should be shot for not paying up...this is a really bad act on their behalf. I know it's not your fault. :(

[Pete Dowson]

I can't keep shelling out for payware. :(

But you don't need to shell out for FSUIPC. It supports freeware for free and payware is supported by arrangement with the folks who make or sell it. Haven't you read what I've written?

Pete

[Guest Cablsurfin]

Pete,

I support you 100% in your efforts to allow you hard work over the years to pay off in a monetary way for you. I will no doubt purchase a copy when it's released. I would like you to address the following quote from "Aerohund's" earlier post:

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 add-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.

Perhaps in order the avoid this potential downside for the user, require only end-users to purchase FSUIPC. If a developer is selling an add-on that requires it they need to just openly say so in their "System Requirements". If the user wants the add-on then they need to make sure they have FSUIPC also. That way you get compensated and the end-user doesn't get the cost passed on to him many times over.

This is just one man's opinion. Keep up the great work.

Regards,

Nick Anzelino

[Erik Haaland]

SO basically what you're saying Pete is that right now I'm building a plane that is freeware, more specifically an F-4 Phantom, for which I want to release for FS2002 and FS2004. If I want it in FS2004, then I have to purchase FSUIPC, for something that I am doing on my own time, for which I want everyone to enjoy. Second my parents won't let me buy something online due to a little incident with Paypal, we had our number stolen and $1400 USD stolen from our credit account, so credit card is not the way for me. To recap its that I want to release something free... but I have to pay for something to make it free? To me that makes no sense at all, I respect your choice but just my two sense. Maybe someone will do what Compaq did. Someone will make guess on how it works and reverse engineer another FSUIPC. But if it really comes down to it I'm willing to send a personal check to you when you get it finished. I'm sure there are hundreds of other avid modelers in my same posistion that wish to release freeware aircraft but can't. Ladies and Gentlemen I'm just saddened to think that this might be the death blow to freeware as we know it. Its all been going downhill till now which it hit rock bottom, and then it keeps on going down. Recently I've seen the number of addons released go drastically down. Already a number of other companies and modelers have gone payware because of your decision Pete. This isn't a hobby anymore, its turned into a business :cry: and frankly people can't afford it anymore, like yourself Pete. I can't wait till LOMAC comes out, maybe it will be a fresh start like the orgional FS's were. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

[jcboliveira]

Erik

Quotes from the Forum. Notice the bold that will answer your question

It supports freeware for free and payware is supported by arrangement with the folks who make or sell it. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

If you are a developer there is a stick post that says:

Developers and suppliers needing further details should write to me forthwith and I will send them a full explanatory document. Write to

petedowson@btconnect.com. Note that this email address is ONLY for specific developer support. All normal support requests must still come to the forum.

Already a number of other companies and modelers have gone payware because of your decision

Sorry, don't know one single case. If there is then, are you sure that it isn't an excuse? It sounds like one.

José

[Pete Dowson]

I would like you to address the following quote from "Aerohund's" earlier post:

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 add-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.

Oh, didn't I answer that one? Sorry.

Taking the last point first, no one ever has to pay for FSUIPC more than once. If he buys the full license for FSUIPC then not only does he have access to all of its facilities, but it will work with all add-ons, whether accredited or not. He doesn't need to pay anything at all if he has no need for the extra facilities and all his add-ons are "accredited".

As for vendors "passing on additional costs", I don't think this is a defensible position. To start with there are no software products I know whose price is based on costs. It is impossible to work out such pricing. Software prices are based on estimates of market worth -- i.e. "how much are folks likely to pay?", "what is the optimum price for this to give maximum returns?". Often a lower price will secure better returns, but it's all a guessing game in the end, with experience and knowledge of the market place as guidance.

Adding in the relatively miniscule amounts vendors or developers will be paying me will make not the blindest bit of difference to this, I assure you.

Regards,

Pete

[Pete Dowson]

SO basically what you're saying Pete is that right now I'm building a plane that is freeware, more specifically an F-4 Phantom, for which I want to release for FS2002 and FS2004. If I want it in FS2004, then I have to purchase FSUIPC

Hold it there.

1. If your aircraft accesses FSUIPC, then, yes, you need FSUIPC installed. Not many add-on aircraft access FSUIPC, but it is feasible.

2. If you access FSUIPC then, effective from FSUIPC version 3, you need an access key (unless the user has bought a full license for his FSUIPC). This is true for any version of Flight Sim, not specifically FS2004. You will see in my announcement that I invite all developers to apply for full details of the registration scheme so they can be prepared.

3. If your plane is freeware -- i.e. you are not making money from it -- then the Acess key you need is provided free. No one pays anyone anything.

Surely this is clear for everything I've said? Why are you not reading any of it?

To recap its that I want to release something free... but I have to pay for something to make it free? To me that makes no sense at all

It makes no sense to me either, especially as, right from the very start, I've made it clear that this wouldn't be the case. Please go back and read what I actually said.

Maybe someone will do what Compaq did. Someone will make guess on how it works and reverse engineer another FSUIPC.

Maybe so. And I'll will go get a different job. But whilst I am full time on this I need some income. Okay?

:-(

Pete

[Erik Haaland]

Ok sorry I guess I misunderstood what you said. Ok so I get the access key from you for free, so it will work with other people's FSUIPCs V3, and I still have to buy my own. Any idea on pricing?

[Pete Dowson]

Ok sorry I guess I misunderstood what you said. Ok so I get the access key from you for free, so it will work with other people's FSUIPCs V3, and I still have to buy my own. Any idea on pricing?

Well, it'll work with yours too .

You don't actually have to buy your own full copy of FSUIPC if you don't want all the facilities. But it will be cheap in any case, probably with a special offer for a time. I think you should find it worth it.

The price will be firmed and published in a couple of weeks. I'm nearly there, but I'm out for a few days next week. I hope to be able to publish everything within the first two weeks of July.

Regards,

Pete

[Chris Brett]

Erik,

No, you don't have to buy your own license! You, personally, would only buy a license if you required to use the *extra* FSUIPC functions that it can provide, ie. the joystick facilities, button mapping etc etc. If you do not require these functions or don't know what I'm talking about, you don't need a license, as an end user, and you can use freeware and commercial products that use FSUIPC without any problem whatsoever. In other words, no different to how you as an end user of a freeware or commercial product stand today using same product.

Below follows my understanding of Pete's intentions with regard to licensing FSUIPC. I hope I have it correct. If people would take the time to read what Pete has already written on the matter then they would answer their own questions and concerns, rather than mouthing off and wingeing at the fact FSUIPC is now a commercial product.

(1) If you are a developer writing a freeware product and wish to have your product communicate with FS via FSUIPC (it's original mission in life), apply to Pete directly for a "freeware" key. That key will be specific to your freeware product and will allow your product to get and set data from/to FS via FSUIPC programming interface. The key will be set in the FSUIPC ini file by the product on installation, the user need do absolutely nothing extra or pay anything extra, because it is the *product* that is licensed, and thus the product can use FSUIPC with no worries. (Freeware authors in the process of developing a freeware product will also, presumably, be able to apply to Pete for a freeware key even though the product is not published, in order to allow said product's development, one assumes.)

(2) If you are a commercial developer, apply to Pete in same manner as 1 above, only hand over some dosh.

(3) If you are not a developer at all, and merely a user of a product that requires FSUIPC to work, then you do nothing and pay nothing. The products that use FSUIPC will already have a license to allow them to work because the developers will have followed step 1 or 2 above.

(4) If you are a developer OR an end user of FSUIPC requiring the use of its extra functions (joystick stuff, keyboard mapping etc) then in order to do so you, personally, will need a license to enable that part of FSUIPC. For this you will need to pay, and once you have your key, you will have access to the extra facilities of FSUIPC, and in addition, all products will be able to communicate with FS via FSUIPC as well on that instance of the licensed user's computer. Thus developers wanting to develop many programs at the same time, particularly commercial developers, would probably find things easier if they bought a license for themselves as well as the one they will require anyway for their product.

In other words, if you are an end user, perhaps you don't even know what FSUIPC is, just that you need it to run your favourite addon, then for you nothing has changed.

Good luck, Pete. :wink:

Chris

[Pete Dowson]

Below follows my understanding of Pete's intentions with regard to licensing FSUIPC. I hope I have it correct.

Thanks Chris! Yes, you understand it very well! I'm glad at least one person does. I was beginning to think I'd lost all my powers of explanation, having said the same thing over and over -- or so I thought! :-)

It more folks seem to understand your wording than mine, can I pinch yours please? ;-)

Best regards,

Pete

[Guest Highvolt]

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

Pete, dont listen to the people who say it has to stay freeware. FSUIPC is for people who take FS seriously, and I dont care for the extra cost. You deserve 100 times this.

Many company's rely on your software, so I think those company's who are making money with it, should pay you the big bucks, so you can keep the price for 'simple' users lower.

Anyway, you are doing a great job !!! If I would ever meet you, drinks are on me for the whole evening!

Cya,

Wim

[Pete Welland]

Well to say I am suprised at some of the posts in this thread is an understatement. Pete Dowson works for years on an interface for MSFS that the vast majority of users and companies utilize and people begrudge a few bucks...sorry thats a disgrace.

I can understand how people new to this hobby and maybe not aware of the benefits nay essential nature of FSUIPC. I can assure them that without said interface we certainly would not have the add ons for FS that we now do. In fact one could even argue that add on development has driven Microsoft to improve its flight/weather/AI engines as if they dont someone will and almost certainly utilizing FSUIPC.

I will say that I donated 30 bucks via the donation system just before I read that the system was dropped. As far as I am concerned I will be happy to pay for FSUIPC on top of that. Lets face it most of my stuff is not going to work without it. A donation is a donation, it buys nothing, it simply says thanks to a guy who has worked possibly harder than almost any other individual to help the FS community.

Thanks Pete. All the very best for the future. I am sure you will fare well.

[jcboliveira]

Pete

Maybe some pseudocode?

if (AreYouDeveloper=='y')

if (application==freeware)

ContactPeteForArrangeFreeKey (PeteEMail);

else

ContactPeteToKnowHowMuchToPay(PeteEMail);

else

if (DoYouWantFullFSUIPCFacilities=='y')

PaySomethingForFSUIPC (CreditCardNumber|Paypal);

else

DeveloperWillGiveYouNecessaryKey (PayNothing);

José

[Pete Dowson]

Maybe some pseudocode?

LOL! Something like thatsome of the actions have got to be defined properly yet, though.

I'm away most of next week so I'm now aiming to sort it all out and publish it more exactly in the first week in July.

Best regards,

Pete

[Guest Dave Weese]

Hey Pete I get what you are saying, just had to take a step back and read all of your post fully to see were you are going, keep up the great work.

[Guest Ben Hewitt]

Oh I understand it now!..sorry I got a bit confused by some other posts. Firstly I must apologise for jumping the gun and saying it was wrong :( . I do now fully agree with what you are doing and reading what you have done in the past to make these modules you fully deserve it, other people have been making money from you such as payware packages etc and you have been reciving no benefits.

I belive it is fully right you do this, i support you in it.

[Guest]

I have just come across this site basically by accident - I must say that I am absolutely amazed at some of the replys in this thread

I think that one of our programmers here should add a bit more to the above code starting with

Do I have a brain?

IF "yes" then switch on and use eyes to read and understand

IF "no" then immediately type stupid comments

I dont think that I am any more or less intelligent than the vast majority of the population but by a very simple method of reading I was able to work out that all the features that I currently have and love will continue to work by whatever method and when I want that "special feature" offered by one of Petes modules that makes the little 3D hand come out of the screen and pass me a coffee - THEN I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT - now how HARD was that to work out?

The sheer fact that the machine passed my coffee for FREE last week has absolutly nothing to do with it - IF I want to continue getting coffee from Petes products then it is called "shut up and PAY" - otherwise just sit back and go get my own coffee - very simple choice really!!!!

Pete - Hope you have enjoyed the rest away from all of this and come back refreshed and ready to "charge" full steam ahead in all ways