plane icon Welcome to Microsoft Flight Simulator’s SDK Q&A Platform!

You have questions regarding the SDK? DevMode Tools? SimConnect? You would like to submit an idea for future improvements, seek help or exchange knowledge? You’re in the right place.

In the upcoming flighting, we've changed the behaviour of the content.xml file. If your addon uses this file, please read this article!

Please take a moment to read the platform’s guidelines before you get started!


RXP avatar image
RXP asked RXP edited

It can indeed be very complicated to reach the Marketplace


The title is an extract from @SonantAlpaca answer here:

Is there any hope for an individual new developer to get accepted as a "partner" for the Marketplace? - MSFS DevSupport (

The topic was about whether an individual developer, new comer most likely, has any chance to be accepted in the Market Place.

Retrospectively, long market place application delays sounded at first like being in phase with the Q&A where Microsoft/Jorg was saying they are overwhelmed by all the applications they are receiving, which I tended to believe, even if we're still waiting our application process despite we were among the first batch to apply (because we were in the early 3rd party developers forum and we knew about the application process a little bit earlier).

Thereafter and ever since, the general consensus is that they are reviewing and testing every single add-on and this takes time, given the load. Which I tended to also believe once again, given the tight control and the strict sandboxing policy, which sounded like they want to control every bit (literally every addon data bit here) of what goes to the market place.

So back in February I was trying to add up official numbers to see what it looks like:


Which indeed sounded like they have a lot of vendor applications still pending any processing at all (the majority is waiting), which also sounds like a few vendors were approved and are enjoying a situation where they can be selling more and more while most others are still waiting more and more at the same time.

And the overall market place process is slow because this takes time to review add-ons, because they must be validated individually for conformity, which I imagine this to be, from the various Q&A comments, as if there is a certain "conformity validation process".


- if this validation process takes so long, or at least takes so much resources that this is the reason there are still so many vendors waiting for the market place application like us (our market place application is still pending for nearly 21 months now...)

- if this is a problem of workload against team size because everything is curated for conformance and quality, as it is so much said in various Q&A

then I'm wondering whether finding an airport add-on in the market place with the following file structure is not discrediting the entire claims for "quality", and whether most vendors still waiting for their market place application are not waiting in vain or hoping too much from it?



10 |10000

Up to 5 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 4.8 MiB each and 23.8 MiB total.

azgoodaz avatar image
azgoodaz answered azgoodaz edited

They either need to approve more people or in the meantime, we need some sense of Marketplace ToS in place. A standard in which all developers should abide.

A marketplace with Captain Sim releasing an aircraft with no cockpit, only an exterior. When did MSFS get so low in standards? I didn't know MSFS was a mobile game banking on microtransactions.

9/10 people will buy an aircraft like that cockpit'less aircraft without even reading the description box.

Asobo, get control of the marketplace and set some rules. It's a disgrace.

Suggestions Asobo should take into account:

  • Asobo should set in a new Marketplace ToS.
  • We should have the ability to report any add-ons that go against ToS gudelines.
  • 'Version History' doesn't get used that often from developers. We need a better way to view when a product updated. If I go to a product page, I should see when they're latest build got published. Put this information in Version History.
  • If a review has less than 2.0 stars, a pop up should stay on screen giving the reader the attention to read the description or look at the reviews before buying.
  • Add-ons who have 2.0 stars should be hidden from the main directory. They shouldn't be allowed to be featured in the Top Selling or Trending sections.
10 |10000

Up to 5 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 4.8 MiB each and 23.8 MiB total.

SonantAlpaca avatar image
SonantAlpaca answered


As you know DevSupport is the developer technical support platform and its team does not deal with the publishing aspects of add-ons.

As such, please get in touch with your Microsoft representative for feedback on publishing processes and suggestions about add-ons quality.

Best regards,

10 |10000

Up to 5 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 4.8 MiB each and 23.8 MiB total.

RXP avatar image
RXP answered RXP edited


Thank you for the additional information.

I won't discuss the first part which is about "getting in touch with your Microsoft representative", but the question remains about how to give any feedback (for those without any representative at all and/or for those who's representative is not answering back their emails).

However, with regard to add-ons and the topic, drawing the line is not easy and it is not always Manichean. For example, here is an issue I'm documenting:

[BUG] FS2020 using 3D cockpit camera in VR - wrong horizontal plane rotation (ex: FBW A320, SALTY 747, ASOBO 787, SDK SAMPLE)

I believe this issue surfaces with many aircraft in VR because:

- Not all aircraft vendors are testing their aircraft in VR.

- Some don't even notice there is a problem in VR, until the problem is explained and shown:
( here is a comment on my PR for the FBW A320: )

- The SDK documentation makes no mention of this specifically.

In other words, there is an issue in VR here, which might be due to a bug, or not:

- If the former, there is a solution: the aircraft loader should ignore the InitialPbh values in VR.

basically: if (IsInVR()) { initialPbh = {0,0,0}; } )

PS: can you please add a mono-space font in the list of fonts in this board?

- If the latter, the SDK should document that FS2020 will slant the pitch reference in VR (it will no longer be aligned with the perceived horizontality from the inner-ear) and vendors should add a PilotVR camera entry which initialPbh must be set to 0,0,0

I'm under the impression the SDK team is the most appropriate to handle this information and to resolve this type of issue, hence this forum is the best avenue to communicate about it.

By extension then, if all aircraft sold on the Marketplace are causing nausea because of this issue, which becomes therefore a question of add-on quality, it is not clear who's team is better handling this, between the SDK team (via better documentation and in making a comformant example via the DA62 SDK sample - which also exhibit the same issue), or the Microsoft marketplace team (because it is about a marketplace sold item,

I don't know how to help you with this so would you agree we rather continue to discuss these matters in this forum still, and that we continue relying on your knowledge of your own teams so that you dispatch to the appropriate one?

10 |10000

Up to 5 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 4.8 MiB each and 23.8 MiB total.

RXP avatar image
RXP answered RXP edited

Further on the InitialPbh bug in VR, you might want to also review the just released Darkstar in the Top Gun Maverick add-on:


1653511141182.png (35.6 KiB)
10 |10000

Up to 5 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 4.8 MiB each and 23.8 MiB total.

Write an Answer

Hint: Notify or tag a user in this post by typing @username.

Up to 5 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 19.1 MiB each and 23.8 MiB total.