I think the question was quite vague actually and most likely provoked the ole "well buddy, if you can't provide any more detail than that, the answer is no" response. Had I been in Mike Humphrey's position my first reaction would have been to reply seeking more detail, then I would have decided I didn't have time to screw with it and since there's really no monetary motivation for MS to give any answer other than "No", I'd have decided that I'd spent enough time with it already and replied in a similar manner, although probably not nearly so politely, and then only for the purpose of creating a paper trail in the event that Gerry was up to "no good", which from my experience is typically what someone is doing when they omit details. I see Mike added a couple CC recipients to his reply, CYA is the reason for that I'm guessing.The subject of the e-mail is deceptive as well, you're not asking if you can use the sim commercially, you're asking if you can sell commercial addons for it. Obviously you composed the e-mail to provoke the answer you got. "Why?" is my big question.

What are you talking about? Both the question and answer was quite clear! Question I would like to develop commercial addons for Flight Simulator X, can I do this under the terms of the EULA, or is a Commercial license required. MS Answer, you need a commercial license, but we're not interested in giving you one for FSX, because we're developing FLIGHT! Can't be more clearer then that!!! I wonder how many FS developers have even checked with MS if they were allowed to develop commercially? I know Aces would have been open to it, but they are no longer in charge!!!

Prepar3D by Lockheed Martin is the Commercial Version at $499.00 a copy.LMCO is working to update FS ESP into a modern piece of software..

What are you talking about? Both the question and answer was quite clear!

Obviously you didn't read my reply or notice the email's To: field...

...or did no one else notice to whom the question was addressed: "Microsoft Game Studios Machinima Request"?

The fact that a game (or sim) producer gives away an SDK and encourages the production of add-ons doesn't necessarily mean that they won't try to claim IP rights over such 3rd party add-ons, even if they have no intention of enforcing their claim.I can think of at least one game (the venerable Deus Ex) whose makers made it a condition of use of their SDK that they reserved all rights to any game add-ons produced by it (which had to be given away free, not sold). However, as far as I know, they never actually enforced these conditions. I imagine entertainment software companies have such conditions purely to cover themselves against unforeseeable developments rather than to annoy their customers.

Obviously you didn't read my reply or notice the email's To: field...

I agree he sent it to the wrong entity within MS, but the question he asked was clear in it's intent! How does Jim jump to he was up to no good?

This same thread ran its course over as FSDeveloper, and was eventually shut down, so I guess that a few people have taken the opportunity to continue that discussion here, hence the implications of ulterior motives. I must admit that although I didn't take part in the FSDeveloper thread, it did cross my mind that the op might have a beef with a particular developer, and was prepared to burn down the whole barn to get one little rat.I know that I've had enough dealings with Microsoft, including invitations, visits, discussions, beta programmes, signed contracts and personal emails to know that they support, encourage and maybe even appreciate the work I and other developers put into FS addons. So the contents of Microsoft's email here are an oddity only.

This same thread ran its course over as FSDeveloper, and was eventually shut down, so I guess that a few people have taken the opportunity to continue that discussion here, hence the implications of ulterior motives. I must admit that although I didn't take part in the FSDeveloper thread, it did cross my mind that the op might have a beef with a particular developer, and was prepared to burn down the whole barn to get one little rat.I know that I've had enough dealings with Microsoft, including invitations, visits, discussions, beta programmes, signed contracts and personal emails to know that they support, encourage and maybe even appreciate the work I and other developers put into FS addons. So the contents of Microsoft's email here are an oddity only.

Maybe I'm just naive, but all I see is a potential commercial developer, asking if there would be a problem before he went ahead, as he should. I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but I don't see one here!

I didn't say Gerry personally was up to no good, don't put words in my mouth tf51d Tom. Gerry is masquerading as a hypothetical developer in this case, I was suggesting that the character he is playing might appear to be "up to no good" in the eyes of Mike Humphrey due to the lack of information in the e-mail. So since it's so clear to you, cut and dried, commercial FS development is not allowed under the terms of the EULA, do you at this point expect that MS will issue cease & desist orders to companies like PMDG, Aerosoft, Carenado, etc? If so, is this something new as a result of Flight being on the horizon, or have these folks been in violation of the EULA since day one and MS just hasn't figured out that they're selling addons yet?Jim

Maybe I'm just naive, but all I see is a potential commercial developer, asking if there would be a problem before he went ahead, as he should.

In which case, I hope that the advice he received here and on FSDeveloper have convinced him that he can safely go ahead with his project.It took me a long time to learn that if you want someone to agree to your plans, you need to make sure that they completely understand what you want, what is required of them, and how it will benefit them. This normally involves finding the right person to talk to (the most important part), including a presentation which foresees and answers most doubts they may have, and makes it possible for them to agree in principle without holding them to anything. Asking one question which can only have a yes or no answer invariably results in a 'no'.

Maybe I'm just naive, but all I see is a potential commercial developer, asking if there would be a problem before he went ahead, as he should. I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but I don't see one here!

I wouldn't put it past mgh to try and shut down all third party addons in order to prove himself "right" in some obscure way only he understands. So yes, you might be a little naive here. This just looks like he's bringing over a continuation of some urinating match he was having on some other forum with somebody. Sorry for adding to this idiotic thread.

I'm not sure what everyone is so excited about. MS owns the rights to FS. In the end, they control what can and can not be done with it. MS has encouraged 3rd party development for FS no doubt to help sales( if we suppose they really care). What if the EULA is worded the way it is so that if someone develops something that MS doesn't like or is harmful, they have an out to shut that someone down?Bob

I wouldn't put it past mgh to try and shut down all third party addons in order to prove himself "right" in some obscure way only he understands. So yes, you might be a little naive here. This just looks like he's bringing over a continuation of some urinating match he was having on some other forum with somebody. Sorry for adding to this idiotic thread.

I guess if I saw the other forum thread it might put this in a clearer context, I'll check it out, if I can find it!Edit: Ok I found the original post over at FSDevelopers and I have to say it does put a new light on his apparent intentions. That aside, I don't think that changes the response he got back from MS, or what's in the Game Rulers themselves, which I don't think just applies to Movies or screenshots. It's "other cool things (your “Item” or “Items”)" that would apply here. As for the division of MS he sent the request to, it seems that is just the department that is assigned to game content issues.

As for the division of MS he sent the request to, it seems that is just the department that is assigned to game content issues.

No, that is the department that is assigned to control the use to which the content is put. No doubt this department assumed that the requestor wished to use Flight Simulator to produce a machinima clip to be used in something like a movie, or perhaps as an integral part of some other "thing" he wished to create.

Trolling

If someone will provide me with an alternative address at Microsoft, I'll send my question there.Better still, perhaps a commercial developer could provide copies of correspondence (letters/emails) from Microsoft confirming that a Commercial Licence isn't required.