MattNischan

Not really, no. Firstly, the correct avenue for all bug reports is the forums. We're lucky we also have a Discord and can interact directly with the community for some things as well, but we actually worked directly on relatively few aircraft compared to our avionics install base in 2024. So, we're (rightly) directing people to the official reporting location for those planes or those issues that are due to aircraft and not avionics. For other larger project requests in the past, like HUDs or G3Xs or niche (but developmentally expensive) features, we did indeed suggest that folks put those requests on the forums as well, because that's the primary source for this kind of feedback and direction setting. It's not really our place to make those resource and financial prioritizations. But, the process also does totally work; that's exactly how something hugely costly like the G3X gets greenlit. I will also say the avenue of reporting bugs through individual contractors is essentially unheard of in the development industry and indeed in most industries. That's not to say we're rejecting the feedback; I just want to point out how fortunate we all are in general.

Sure thing! Unfortunately, these are all issues with the aircraft themselves; for the G1000, the NAV radio tuning and blank MFD issue is a miswiring of the cockpit XML, for the GNS, none of the posted videos are the WT GNS, they're the original Asobo AS430/530. I would report those issues on the forums as they may be backwards compatibility issues that need attention from the core or aircraft teams.

How were you loading this plan exactly?

Can you expand on your question a bit? When you say "downloaded", which action are you referring to, are you referring to saving the plan on the website, or loading the plan from the website into the EFB planner app, or something else?

Can you be more specific about what isn't working? Do you have an example of a flight plan that isn't loading correctly? Also, for both of these, have you all posted these issues on the official forums in the feedback threads?

As opposed to integrating third party features directly (which is not really fair to other third parties that might want similar attention), we instead have built a standardized API by which any third party can create integrations that sync routes to the avionics; I believe already SimBrief and Navigraph are using it in their EFB apps (which are in public beta). And yes, as a universal fallback, there is also the PLN load and then sync via planner app route.

In the in-sim EFB version, if you have nearby ground based navaids, like a VOR, NDB, or airport, you can click on them on the map to get information about them, which if I'm remembering correctly includes the altitude. For the web version, you can also turn on MORA grid as a map layer.

Unfortunately, I'm not quite familiar enough with this system to say. I suspect no, but I'm probably the wrong person to ask. -Matt

It might, but I admit that I'm not really an expert here so I can't say for 100% certain. -Matt

Hi all, There is presently an issue with the sim where in some cases when merging aircraft CFGs for the new modular SimObject format, the CFGs can become corrupted for some data for some people. This causes the data for the lights to be different than as it is specified in the CFGs, where it is actually correctly defined. The issue has been reported to the sim teams and I believe they are looking into the cause of this issue. -Matt

We have had a few reports of issues with weather overlays for some users, disappearing when they should not, which we are looking into. Which browser are you on? For wind barbs, we are looking to improve the resolution of the data in the future. -Matt

Both the LIDO and FAA charts are georeferenced, yes. -Matt

One workaround for now: if you select your SID and STAR first, then hit Auto-Route for the enroute segment, it will route from the end of the SID to the end of the STAR. We thought putting the Auto-Route button next to the enroute segment would make it obvious that it just really procedurally generates an enroute based on whatever else is presently in the other segments of your route, but it appears we missed the mark on that from the confusion we're seeing! We'll definitely take a look at that flow overall to see how we can make it more user-friendly and obvious. That's very kind and generous of you, thank you! And no worries, we do the same thing on our end, we're all big sim nerds here. 😅 -Matt

Because this is a flight planner for more than just tubeliners, it can't really know your expectations or intentions here. It's totally possible someone is intending to want to fly in some wild direction as they're doing something other than point-to-point commercial operations. So, I'm not sure we want to automatically mangle someone's enroute segment when they change their SID or STAR, plus it's somewhat non-trivial to algorithmically determine exactly what to remove from the enroute. That being said, what could be an option here we could add, would be some kind of enable/disable button/checkbox/something for procedurally generated enroute routing that would lock that segment and just always procedurally generate for whatever SID/STAR updates you make. Something we'll definitely discuss. Is this with the in-sim EFB planner app or the web version? In the sim if you want to actually load fuel (as opposed to just plan it), you need to via the Aircraft app on the EFB. For the web version, you can input an average fuel burn on the Route pane, by opening the Performance Options dropdown. As mentioned right now it's simple trip planning, with more comprehensive performance-based computations coming in a future update. The units there use the units you specify in the Options pane. -Matt

Hi all, A few notes for the launch version of the site: - Suggested routes and auto-route are programmatically generated shortest routes, favoring airway usage. We do not presently have access to a licensed real world route data source. However, for users who would like a shortest enroute path generated that option is available. - We have noted a few bugs with the sid/star auto selection options and are working to enhance those. However, as we don't have a licensed real world data source you should still ensure they comply with local rules, if necessary. Changing the sid/star selection will not alter your enroute segment. - Performance computations are currently simplified. The MSFS 2024 performance data (flight_performance.cfg) ecosystem is brand new and there is not yet a critical mass of developers utilizing this feature to provide planning performance data. Presently you can select a speed and a fuel burn and it will do basic trip calcs like you would find in GA avionics systems. However, once we get more data, we will update the planner with comprehensive performance calculations as you find in other tools. - Some data (such as equipment for equipment string) is not available in the sim as there is no place to specify it. It's something that has been brought up with the greater sim and SDK teams to see if there can be a solution to that that would be officially supported. - The web version doesn't communicate directly with the sim (so your payload won't magically show up on the web or anything like that). But, you can save your planned route on the web version, then load it in the sim EFB. You can also share your route with other people, super useful for group flights or bush trips, just by hitting the Copy Link button in Open Flight Plan, which will copy a link to the route to your clipboard. Anyone that opens that link will load that route into their browser, and can save it for themselves if they like. Right now we think of the tool more as something like LNM (which we all love): something you plan your flight and route in but not something that necessarily plans your route for you. And, of course, above and beyond a tool like that you can view charts, get live and forecast weather layers (up to 18-24 hours), METARs, etc. But, we're happy to get any and all feedback and we appreciate everyone who has tried the tool out so far! -Matt