Here's the entire announcement from their Discord:

Nav Data Cycle 2502 has been released for all platforms (2020, 2024, and web planner). In addition to this, we have some great updates to the web planner, including the integration of dark mode charts (!) into our charts ingestion pipeline and bringing an option for those into the planner. It was a lot of work updating the pipeline to transform the source charts and apply the dark mode styling to generate the new dark mode charts, and we hope folks enjoy the option. We additionally hope to bring the ability to view these dark mode charts as well to the EFB planner app in SU2. 

Other great features added since the last cycle to the web planner include a brand new procedure details pane with relevant navaids (reachable by clicking the (i) symbol next to the procedure), updated 2025 magvar data (coming also to 2024 in SU1), an elevation peaks layer on the map, undockable and resizable chart window, full SID/STAR name support in the route string, and plenty of other small features and bugfixes. 

Along with all of this work for flight planning on the web, we've been hard at work on aircraft and avionics in MSFS 2024 SU1, adding things such as a chart viewer to the Epic instruments, numerous bugfixes and tweaks to all our avionics such as using the new RNP AR flags in 2024 to eliminate false positives when filtering out AR approaches in aircraft not certified for those, correcting the WT21 FD roll bar and user waypoints behavior, FMS bugfixes to the UNS dealing with linking procedures and enroute, tons of fixes to the Epic based on everyone's great feedback on this brand new instrument, aircraft updates to the CJ4, Vision Jet, and more. 

Even with all that, we've found time to make some quality EFB planner app updates in SU1 as well, such some nice QOL shortcuts to the orientation and size options on the planner map if the EFB is in panel mode, map scale line, better chart viewer interactions including mouse wheel zoom, and numerous other small items and fixes. 

And finally, we've also been tackling SDK and aircraft developer issues for SU1, such as correcting dropped name, ident, and altitude data when loading PLN files; fixing backwards compatibility problems with the legacy JS map instrument and FS9GPS simvars, and helping folks get support with the framework and our avionics packages where they need it. 

I know we've been a bit more quiet in the past year, but as you can see we're quite hard at work continuing to try and bring you all the best flight simulator experience that we can! Thanks to everyone who has provided feedback and bug reports to us via all the various avenues (MSFS Forums, our Discord here, Avsim, Reddit, and the rest of the community). Keep them coming! 

Thanks again all and fly safe!

Personally I am very happy the Vision Jet is mentioned specifically because it's the only plane I fly. Can't wait to see what has been improved! 

And now that WT is implementing the LIDO charts and navdata in more and more systems I really do hope developers will start to add the MSFS2024 LIDO chart and navdata plus support for the MSFS2024 planner to their products, like in BATC. Would be great if the mandatory Navigraph/SimBrief would become a thing of the past.

Very nice!

57 minutes ago, mistolip said:

Would be great if the mandatory Navigraph/SimBrief would become a thing of the past.

Ha ha, as much as I appreciate the work from WT, the MSFS flightplanner is not even close to being as good as SimBrief.

I wouldn't it even call a "planner", because you have to plan with something else and fill out the planner with these external data.

Or try to choose an A380 ...

8 minutes ago, guenseli said:

Ha ha, as much as I appreciate the work from WT, the MSFS flightplanner is not even close to being as good as SimBrief.

I wouldn't it even call a "planner", because you have to plan with something else and fill out the planner with these external data.

Or try to choose an A380 ...

They have always said there planner is more like littlenavmap at the moment. However, they are looking to make it similar to navigraph.

i am glad they are building this and look forward to what it will mature into. While navigraph is nice I tire of subscription services everywhere you turn. 

3 minutes ago, Lotharen said:

While navigraph is nice I tire of subscription services everywhere you turn.

Yes, I also hate subscriptions, and even that I find it too high, I really appreciate the work of Navigraph and Simbrief.

I can't imagine that Asobo, Microsoft or WT could give us that fast support like you have in Simbrief. Think about how long it would take for WT to implement auto fuel planning for 3rd party addons. I'm sure we won't see stuff like that in 2025, if ever
 

Brilliant, love the dark mode implementation of LIDO charts. Now we just need more addons to integrate the native charts into the EFB (the aircraft one, not the pop up one). I read the ini A350 will do that - looking at you Fenix/PMDG?

An iPad app would also be nice. I'm using Navigraph at the moment and love the intergration and iPad app, but I very much prefer LIDO over Jeppesen format! Can't see myself dumping Simbrief anytime soon though.

Brilliant stuff, dark mode and the elevation map will be very handy for me. I look forward to trying all these goodies out one day.

5 hours ago, guenseli said:

Think about how long it would take for WT to implement auto fuel planning for 3rd party addons. I'm sure we won't see stuff like that in 2025, if ever

This is a very confident take! 😉

However, the facility for having performance data for flight planning indeed already exists in MSFS 2024 (https://docs.flightsimulator.com/msfs2024/html/5_Content_Configuration/CFG_Files/flight_performance.htm) and we already announced at I believe the first developer Q&A after 2024 release that we were mostly waiting on having a critical mass of performance data available from various plane developers as well as gathering feedback on the format.

In fact, because of this facility, it will be even easier than SimBrief, as anyone, developer or community member, merely needs to have this CFG available for a given aircraft, and nobody will need to wait on us to create performance models.

-Matt

I would highly appreciate if you would proof me wrong!!! 😉

45 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

This is a very confident take! 😉

However, the facility for having performance data for flight planning indeed already exists in MSFS 2024 (https://docs.flightsimulator.com/msfs2024/html/5_Content_Configuration/CFG_Files/flight_performance.htm) and we already announced at I believe the first developer Q&A after 2024 release that we were mostly waiting on having a critical mass of performance data available from various plane developers as well as gathering feedback on the format.

In fact, because of this facility, it will be even easier than SimBrief, as anyone, developer or community member, merely needs to have this CFG available for a given aircraft, and nobody will need to wait on us to create performance models.

-Matt

Hey Matt, I'm not sure if you're aware, but some of the LIDO charts of the airport are missing the taxiway lettering. For example, in this video:

Makes it hard for us to navigate the airport when we get taxi instructions from VATSIM or BeyondATC if the airport chart isn't showing the taxiway lettering.  I think the LIDO charts and EFB are part of Working Title's responsibility, right? Let me know if I should file a bug in the official MSFS forum to kickstart a fix on this. Thanks.

Edited February 21, 20251 yr by abrams_tank

4 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

but some of the LIDO charts of the airport are missing the taxiway lettering.

What you see in that video is just the map, and not the charts. The airport layer of the map is drawn by the sim engine and we have no control over that rendering.

The actual AGC LIDO charts for the airport (available on the info page for the airport) contain all the taxiway designations.

-Matt

3 hours ago, MattNischan said:

However, the facility for having performance data for flight planning indeed already exists in MSFS 2024 (https://docs.flightsimulator.com/msfs2024/html/5_Content_Configuration/CFG_Files/flight_performance.htm) and we already announced at I believe the first developer Q&A after 2024 release that we were mostly waiting on having a critical mass of performance data available from various plane developers as well as gathering feedback on the format.

First time I've looked at that SDK information and it gives me great pause. I hope most of the issues are just attempts at rough approximations for calculations and are not indicative of FS2024 physics calcs. For example, there is no effect of runway slope on takeoff or landing distances. And this is the first mention (in the Notes on Takeoff Distances) I've seen of the rolling friction assumed for wet and dry runways. In IRL jet transport performance, we never used different values for wet and dry runways, and the value we used is only about half the dry value shown on that page. That's probably why we have to artificially increase ground idle thrust so much to get realistic taxi performance.

The takeoff distances don't seem to consider all the different factors that may be involved, unless that is supposed to be "baked" into the numbers supplied by the developer. There doesn't appear to be any accounting for reduced thrust/derates. I have no idea where the safety margins that are applied to the distances came from, but they are not appropriate for transport category airplanes. (These are just a few of the issues/questions I have about this SDK content.

1 minute ago, Donstim said:

I hope most of the issues are just attempts at rough approximations for calculations and are not indicative of FS2024 physics calcs.

These values are not indicative of the underlying simulation and have no influence on it.

2 minutes ago, Donstim said:

These are just a few of the issues/questions I have about this SDK content.

The takeoff and landing distance calculator is part of the aircraft app in the EFB and not the flight planning app or flight planning website. We are not involved in anything regarding takeoff and landing distance computation, so this might be something to bring up on the official forums, or the DevSupport forum if you're a developer working with this part of the file.

-Matt

9 hours ago, guenseli said:

Yes, I also hate subscriptions,

We all hate spending money.

 

9 hours ago, guenseli said:

and even that I find it too high

Navigraph is fantastic value!