Hello, is it possible to add a new OFP? Of course, if possible.
Hi…,
Welcome.
I have moved your message to this category. You can ask to add an OFP here, and vote for it.
They involve a good deal of work, so we need to see if the demand is there.
Cheers
Ian
Ian, no offence, but you have posted the same reply over and over again. Many people, including myself, have repeatedly expressed their desire for different OFP layouts. We have also voted on them in large numbers. Other members of the community have offered help with creating the layouts. And yet you never seem to acknowledge these requests, much less act on them. Even if you’re not able or willing to provide more layouts, then please say so, as we can then move on instead of waiting or hoping for what may never materialize. Thanks a lot!
okay well you havent described the OFP you requested
I have personal favorites, but I will content myself with anything new. Somebody already made a ready-to-use layout for Swiss/Helvetic/Edelweiss (see other thread), that would seem like a good start, wouldn’t it?
I don’t have much to add to Ian’s post, the best way is still to vote for features so that we can gauge interest.
But I’ll try to give some more context regarding layout requests specifically below. Please don’t take this as minimizing or downplaying the validity of OFP layout requests. Personally I find the different layouts interesting as well, but there are a few reasons why they can take a bit more time to get to:
While this may be true, most people are requesting a specific layout. The amount of people that would be satisfied if a given format is added is very low. There are certainly a few users (such as yourself) who would be happy to see any new layout added, but this seems quite uncommon based on the statistics we have.
To give some actual numbers, the most popular airlines planned on SimBrief can be found here. At current writing, EWG - Eurowings is the most popular airline we don’t have a layout for (currently in 9th place). KLM (which we do have a layout for) is roughly equivalent in 10th place. Over the past 24 hours, 0.3% of users (3 in 1000) have used the KLM layout option. So we can make a rough estimate that if we were to add a EWG layout, it would probably be used by under 0.5% of SimBrief users (slightly more than KLM).
Depending on the complexity of the layout, it can take anywhere from 15 to 30 hours to program it. The recent AAL redesign took closer to 30h, in large part due to the unique layout of the NOTAMs section, but that was deemed worth it since many potential future layouts share the same NOTAMs layout (it’s since been ported to SWA, for example).
With that said, we currently have a to-do list of around 100 other requested features. Most of them are general improvements or fixes that would benefit all SimBrief users, and many of them can be done in the same amount of time as adding a single new layout. For example:
- Redispatch planning
- Adding real-world route sources for Europe and/or other countries
- A better interface for custom altitude changes enroute
- Respecting SID/STAR restrictions in the altitude profiler
- Better handling of RAD restrictions in Europe
- Including suitable enroute airports weather and NOTAMs in OFPs
- More airframe customization options (including better speed/performance adjustments)
- Adding takeoff/landing calculations for more aircraft types
- Adding a database of intersection takeoff distances to the takeoff performance tool
- Decoupling the “Step Climbs” option from the FIR/airway-specific cruise tables
- Decoupling the “Detailed Navlog” option from the creation of FMS route files
- Support for custom file names when exporting from the SimBrief Downloader
Not to mention many bug fixes, performance improvements, and general server/infrastructure work that needs to be done to keep the site responsive as it continues to grow.
The infrastructure and upkeep stuff takes priority, then user support takes a significant amount of time (such as writing this post), then critical bug fixes, then any left over time can be put towards new features. This makes it all the more important to use that leftover time for new features wisely.
But we still do manage to work on layouts from time to time. In the past year we’ve added or updated the following:
| Layout | Update | Date(s) |
|---|---|---|
| WZZ | Completely new LIDO-based layout added | December 13th 2024 |
| AAL | Major redesign based on new FLIGHTKEYS system, most sections changed in some way, completely new navlog style, completely new NOTAMs layout | June 20th 2025 |
| SWA | Moderate redesign based on new FLIGHTKEYS system, new NOTAMs layout | July 4th 2025 |
| DLH | Moderate redesign based on latest info | August 22nd 2024 |
| BAW | Light to moderate redesign based on latest info | August 12th 2024 |
| EIN | Light to moderate redesign based on latest info | August 9th 2024 |
| UAE | Light to moderate redesign based on latest info | Various updates over the past year |
| RYR | Light redesign based on latest info | August 7th 2024 |
Not including various minor updates and fixes to a few other layouts over the past year (namely DAL and UAL).
If I had to guess, this is probably the update cadence you can expect in a given year. One or two new layouts and minor to moderate updates for a few other existing ones.
At present we don’t have any layouts currently in progress. AFR might get a moderate update and JBU might get a major redesign at some point. When it comes to new layouts, we don’t have any info about the EWG layout so we can’t add it currently. SAS would be the next highest in the list, but it’s a table-based (Sabre or Flightkeys?) layout that takes even more time to program than the LIDO-based ones, which makes it even harder to get to I’m afraid.
Hope this was helpful in some way!
Best regards,
2 Likes
Hi Derek, absolutely, thank you very much for your detailed answer! That really puts things into perspective. I can also fully understand that you would rather invest development time and effort into other features that benefit all users. My only gripe was that the requests did not seem to be acknowledged, and there was little indication whether they would be followed up on – and even if not, I can appreciate that decision, not least because I know you guys are working hard on so much other cool stuff. Sorry if I came across as somewhat curt.
Would you generally be open to user, “non-curated” layouts that could be marked as such? This is the way PFPX went, and there are quite a few user-made layouts that work really well.
Regarding Eurowings:
The layout should be very similar to the existing GWI layout, as the two airlines pretty much merged some years ago. There appear to be some smaller changes, notably more general information about the route and an ATIS field:
In general yes, but unfortunately that requires designing and implementing a template system like PFPX had. We don’t have anything like this internally right now, formats are instead programmed using raw code (which is how we’re able to reproduce them so accurately of course).
Designing a fully featured template system is a huge amount of work, it isn’t a switch we can just flip I’m afraid. A lot of the backend would need to be redesigned, in addition to a lot of work brainstorming the actual templates and variable lists, and finally designing UI components so that it’s as easy as possible for users to create their layouts.
It does look similar, thanks for that! We need to see a bit more of it though, in general we prefer not to “guess” on any missing portions. 
Is that a screenshot from a cockpit video?
Best regards,
I understand. In the other thread I saw another user willing to share a ready-to-use layout for Swiss, maybe that would be something you could work with if it’s coded already?
Yes, indeed the screenshot is from a video, here’s another one if it helps –
Hi Derek,
thank you for your honest reply – I fully understand that you need to focus your resources on features that benefit the widest group of users.
In my case, however, this is a bit different: I have already developed a fully programmed OFP layout that realistically covers SWISS, Edelweiss and Helvetic operations. This layout has been in daily use by over 300 pilots in our Edelweiss Virtual community for several months now – with consistently positive feedback.
Of course, I understand that it would still need a final review from your side before it could be made officially available in SimBrief. But the actual development work is already done – what’s needed is mainly integration and your approval.
My concern is simply that this work might “get lost” otherwise, even though it’s fully functional and ready. I truly believe it could be of value not only to our community but also to many other SimBrief users interested in CH-based airlines.
If official integration isn’t feasible right now, would it at least be possible to provide such community-made layouts as “non-official, not curated” options? Similar to what PFPX allowed – with clear labeling. That way you can maintain your quality line while still giving the community a way to contribute.
Best regards,
Michael (Flyedw)
1 Like