All future 3rd party aircraft uploaded to the Marketplace must come with a checklist

Self-explanatory really. Accessibility is at the heart of this simulator, but I’m not seeing this relate to real-world improvements in the sim. As a requirement, NO 3rd party aircraft should be allowed on the marketplace, unless they are willing to also acknowledge a much wider audience for their products - this means significant QoL improvements to learning the aircraft, as you would the default planes. For example, not including a checklist for a start-up procedure is just plain dumb.

We are not all after study aircraft level simulation and plenty won’t when the Xbox version releases, so improve accessibility otherwise people will be left behind.


Well, as long as the stock aircrafts missing complete checklists as well, this is sadly only a nice wish.

1 Like

The problem with that is regulation of what exactly constitutes a ‘complete’ checklist. I’ve seen several versions of checklists that have more or less steps than others and have them in different order.

That will never happen as it’s on individual developers. Microsoft said they won’t curate the products on Marketplace.

1 Like

Just out of curiosity since it’s impossible to know before buying:
Which aircraft in the Marketplace have incomplete checklists?
Maybe at least the Marketplace description should be clear about what to expect here…

You’re completely wrong. I’m not here to dictate policy, but surely as an accessible platform which this is you have to see the logic in my request. Simply shutting it down, without any consideration is an extremely poor response.

It is a very simple request and since they are so keen to let us know how accessible FS will be moving forward, everyone has a duty to acknowledge that it’s the correct thing to-do. The simulator and fanbase needs to move in a different direction and stop behaving like it’s 20 years ago - it needs to allow everyone and anyone to experience it and QoL improvements at the core are one reason to accelerate this plan.

I am not wrong and no one has “duty” to acknowledge anything you say.

I understand your request and where it’s coming from. I fully agree that it’s a good idea. I am simply letting you know that I believe it’s a fruitless endeavour to expect that to be implemented.

What you are asking for is for Microsoft to police add-on aircraft and unless a 3rd party developer has in-sim checklists, they should be rejected from the Marketplace.

That’s an unrealistic expectation. It’s a PIPE DREAM. Would it be nice? Sure. But don’t hold your breath.

1 Like

No one is shutting down the thread. It’s simply pointing out that this is an individual 3rd Party Manufacturer burden, not a Flight Sim marketplace one. There are certain minimum requirements to get your product into the Marketplace, but having a checklist shouldn’t be one of them.


Some of the replies in here are missing the point. I am not asking for any policing of the marketplace, but certainly a more rigorous set of rules that is not just aimed directly at the hardcore enthusiast.

Not including a basic in-sim checklist? It would not take longer than a small amount of time to implement one during development. How are newcomers going to learn otherwise? It is a simple solution with low effort. It’s is an extremely important part of learning about the aircraft.

How about if someone purchases an aircraft through the marketplace and there is no checklist - does that warrant grounds for a refund? Yes, in my opinion it is not fit for service in this day and age.

We need to have healthy discussion and I welcome that, but the reasons for not wanting to implement this request are incredibly weak. It is 2021, accessibility should be a central part of this simulator and right now it isn’t when there’s resistance on even small ideas like this.

Try reading a manual with the checklist in it? Watch YouTube? How do you think I learned?

Grounds for a refund because there is no in-sim checklist? You’re high.

1 Like

One of the points of having 3rd Party is value-add. But is a checklist really a value add? What if someone builds say an Ultra-Light and the only option they offer for start-up is CTRL-E? Does that make it a bad product? Maybe. Maybe not.

Let the market decide. If a checklist means a developer can make more sales, then the market will dictate if that’s the case. But there’s also use cases - a CRJ would definitely need one if it’s making claims to be a “study level jet.” But that’s not the case with all products.

And I requested this be moved to Third-Party Aircraft so presumably the manufacturers will see this thread, and you’ll get a better idea of their thinking if they participate. Thanks Mod team!

Well, you could simply try it yourself with one of the standard edition aircraft to add proper checklists (including highlighting and automated processing).
I did and it is pretty complex to do so.

But I’d like to repeat my question above:
Which aircraft in the Marketplace are missing checklists?
I’d like to know whether this is really a widespread issue. I actually expected the addon developers to provide them and it sounds like they don’t?

Most of the third party aircraft doesn’t have in-sim checklists. They are usually in manuals. I believe the IndiaFoxtEcho may be the only developer to include the in-sim checklists. And that was only after one of the recent updates.

1 Like

Okay, never thought about even questioning this.

What about having a list of predefined features that are shown for every addon (with yes/no flag) containing things like:

  • custom sounds
  • custom avionics
  • interactive checklist
  • EFB

This way one could clearly see (and maybe filter) those extra-effort features that separat the better or more complete addons from those that do just the bare minimum to create nice screenshots?

I have a vision-related disability, so that may color my response a bit. Not including a checklist with any built-in or 3rd-party aircraft does not affect accessibility in any way, imho. Ctrl-E = accessibility for a complete novice user, assisted checklist = accessibility to a beginner that wants to learn more, including a checklist in a 3rd-party aircraft is a class move, imho, but not necessary to be accessible.

Checklists are also freely available and easy to find on today’s internet, which makes a comparison to FSX slightly less valid.

Ctrl-E = high accessibility
Assisted checklists = medium accessibility

Also, anyone having issues finding or understanding a checklist item is free to ask here and from my experience, many many friendly and patient people will try and help. No offense to anyone, just how I feel about this. Thanks.

1 Like

If this were touted as just another arcade flying game, then I’d agree that no checklists were needed.

As MSFS 2020 creators have gone to such exhaustive lengths to convince us that this is the best simulation ever created, then a checklist is a no brainer to get to the starting gate.

After all, the Kentucky Derby has rules too. Not just any nag gets up to run with the thoroughbreds. If they allowed that, there would soon be no Kentucky derby.

Same for MSFS 2020. When I think of all the c/r/a/p I bought, that was passed off as great aircraft in FSX, I’m going to throw up if MSFS 2020 starts that.

This sim has gotten off to a really good start.

I am really looking forward to high quality, detailed, study level aircraft.

For all others there is FSX

my 2 cents.
Your mileage may vary.

And just how much about actual checklists do you think that the typical modeler developer knows, or for that matter, cares about?
A checklist to be useful, in the context that you are calling it, needs to be as complete as the items in the model that actually work, and must be based on a real life checklist, at least for a similar aircraft. I really can’t see many developers going to that trouble.
As well, we have the problem of language. I know that the language of aviation is English, but a large proportion of our fans come from countries where English isn’t the first language, and all this effort would be completely wasted on them, unless your next suggestion is that the developer should produce the checklist in a variety of languages, which would be even more ridiculous.
Personally, I’d ENCOURAGE those developers who want ot, and can, produce an accurate check list to do so, but to put it on all developers to do so would be completely counter-productive, rubbing out future development of

  • many military aircraft
  • aircraft from non-English speaking nations
  • aircraft for which no check list survives
  • aircraft for which there is not a pre-existing checklist that can be adapted available somewhere on the WWW.
    Sotty, I can’t support this one.