Microsoft Flight Simulator - Commercial use licence?

[advent]

Hi, I have been trying to get a 737 sim together for a few years and would really like to sell time on it to the general public.

Is there a licence to get from Microsoft as I can only find the personal and non-commerial use limitation?

Does anybody have a sim there using for fun flights and how did you get a licence? Also does anybody know how much Progent Magenta charge for their commercial licence?

www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.mspx (http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.mspx)

Thanks

Dave.

[BlackWidow]

Im not sure on the Project Magenta comercial cost you really should send them an email Im sure they would be happy to provide you with that info. Just curious if you are trying to build a simpit that can be used in conjuction with FAA? As im sure you know that MSFS is not. I would think that contacting Microsft directly about this would get you any info you need.

[advent]

As im sure you know that MSFS is not. I would think that contacting Microsft directly about this would get you any info you need.

Many thanks for the reply. I have emailed PM and just waiting for a reply now.

I managed to contact the Microsoft Business Licencing Centre and had a good chat to them. - They are not at all interested in licensing any Flight Simulator Operation that uses their software and are writing to me now to point out the EULA (End User Licence Agreement) on their packaging. :-(

Big disapointment not to be able to proceed with this!

[NicD]

There are many flight schools, training organisations, and some sim centres already using FS in this way. And what about all the payware add-on producers that use FS as a platform to produce their products ... are they doing something wrong?

Maybe MS is just turning a blind eye to this .. might be best to "let sleeping dogs lie" ?

[Matt Olieman]

I agree with Nic :)

[Westozy]

I think they are being a bit wise and letting the community grow it for them.

[ve4anc]

Hi Folks:

First post here, so go easy on a newbie.

I have some experience in advanced pilot training and a tiny bit of experience in the certification of fight training devices and full flight simulators as a Civil Aviation Inspector for a civil aviation regulator .. not FAA.

While some flight schools may be using MS FS 2004 or FS X, the time spent in training with these programs is not able to be credited toward the minimum training time requirements for a licence or rating. The program is not FAA approved.

That said, FS is a very helpful training aid for someone and is neat to fool around with the develop or maintain instrument proficiency.


Regards to all,
Lee Smith

[NicD]

Hi Lee and welcome! I'm writing a paper at the moment about that very subject - so i concur with your information.

I've seen/read of situations where FS is used in classrooms, for flight lesson introductions, informal student practice etc. So if MS wanted to take there EULA to the 'nth' degree they could argue that its being used for commercial and non-individual purposes. Thankfully they don't, and it wouldn't make much sense for them to do that to their user community. I hope thats the case anyway :shock: :)

[jmig]

I can concur with Lee on the value of MSFS in actual flying. I flew in the Air Force but quit for fifteen years. When I decided to start flying again I purchased MSFS 2000 to pre-fly business trips I would take in the actual airplane.

I later started practicing instrument approaches, again the ones I might fly at my designation. In both cases, I was amazed at the degree of realism MSFS provided me. It helped me transition back into the cockpit.

Today, with FS9 or FSx and a decent pit, you get much greater realism than any of the simulators I flew back in the 1970's and early 80's. These were nothing more than emergency procedure and instrument procedure trainers. They cost a whole lot more money than a home pit cost today.

[AndyT]

In order for MSFS to be acceptable to the FAA for use as an 'Official' training simulator software, it has to be TSO'ed and since that costs a completly unreasonable amount of money its highly unlikely MS is going to go for it.

But dont be fooled, they know how its being used and that's just fine by them. As long as you dont make any money off of it.

[dcutugno]

The X-Plane simulator is Certified by FAA!!! and they sold less copies of it than FS series.

So why MS don't certify his simulator? Simple the flight model and the Engine itself is a total mess!

In FS you can fly a 747 with cessna wings! in Xplane it take account of Airfoil and simulate fluid (air) dinamycs from them!

.....

But i think as a procedure only trainer MS can be certified....thats are only my toughts.

Bye!

[QF6228]

I agree...

[Tomlin]

The X-Plane simulator is Certified by FAA!!! and they sold less copies of it than FS series.

So why MS don't certify his simulator? Simple the flight model and the Engine itself is a total mess!

In FS you can fly a 747 with cessna wings! in Xplane it take account of Airfoil and simulate fluid (air) dinamycs from them!

.....

But i think as a procedure only trainer MS can be certified....thats are only my toughts.

Bye!

Hi

I totally disagree in all aspects of the above. The Xplane software/airfoil modeling is in my opinion very much hyped up. In theory if the Xplane software was so good, you would expect it's default Cessna to fly right. I realize that everyone's experience with software is different and it's all about perception, but again, if the Xplane software models flight based off of airfoil geometry you would hope that it's stock aircraft would perform. For me they didnt, and this was for an evaluation that was being conducted for a now-modified aviation product to hit the market in the future. The team (who is lead by a major brass head liner of the Coast Guard Aux. with over 6,000 hours in fixed-wing types) massively preffered MSFS9. That said, yes, MSFS does have some issues on the modeling side, but again, I really think it's perspective and in all fairness it's entirely possible that I could sit down to a sim running Xplane all decked out like a friday night date and love it.

Also, MS does realise their product is being used in the way that it is. We had our business developer contact their people and it was nothing but red tape and no definate answer as to the possiblity of a commercial license. To agree with some poster above, I am glad that MS has not defind everything down to the nth degree as well- it leaves some windows of oportunity open for some scenarios, albeit well thought out ones.

Dont forget that the FAA didnt come to Austin Meyer looking to certify Xplane- someone went to the FAA to have it certified. That process costs quite a bit of money in and of itself.