Re: The endless influx of low-quality, low-realism, quantity-over-quality aircraft into FGAddon

My two cents:

Note for those who follow the forum:
I will preface that while I have a longstanding "feud" (if you can call it that) with helijah, it is mostly a personal one regarding his behavior towards me and his response to criticism rather than on topic of the aircraft, so I will attempt to comment in an unbiased way. Please let me know if I have not done so satisfactorily.

From hear on, I will be abbreviating FGAddon as "FGA". Please beware about it.

From the OP:

> FGAddon is drowning in continuous influx of low-quality aircraft simulations. The FGAddon repository turned into a literal dumping ground of HUNDREDS of placeholder-tier models that look, fly, and behave in a completely counter-realistic manner.

While I agree with that, I don't necessarily think the inclusion of low-quality aircraft in FGA, but rather the failure of the aircraft-rating system. By default, FGFS launcher will show 3 star minimum, but I think we changed that to 4 (thankfully). This should alleviate most of the low-quality aircraft assuming that the aircraft rating is proper... but sadly many airplanes are quite incorrectly rated. Especially where the 3 star minimum is set, I have encountered over 100 aircraft that absolutely "DO NOT" match 3 stars in systems or FDM in any way, shape, or form.

> WHY IN THE HELL WE HAVE DOUBLE INSTANCES OF ONE AIRCRAFT, THE SAME AIRCRAFT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Well, it comes from the fact that multiple people may want to develop the same plane. Like in the MSFS world, you can get the FSLabs A32x, the Fenix A32x, or the FlyByWire A32NX, and maybe even another?

I don't see anything wrong with that per say, except that it causes a "funky" situation with the current naming scheme. For example, I currently "own" the folder name "MD-11". If someone else wants to make their own MD-11, then they will have to name it something else... if they chose "McDonnell Douglas MD-11", that's not only too long to make sense, but now end users have no idea "which" MD-11 is what.

I ran into this problem with the 707. Mark's version, while very good for the time, is lacking fidelity in the systems and flight model and behavior of some instruments. So, on the backburner, I've been rewriting the systems in JSBSim with more details, and a new flight model. But what will I do when I put it in FGAddon? Currently it's named "707-V2" which I feel is a bit "weird"...

I've considered moving to name my aircraft Octal-MD-11, Octal-MD-80, Octal-707, etc... That way anyone can really make what planes they like.

One thing I do think is if a plane is of poor quality, and it is NOT regularly improving, and someone else makes one the old one should "ABSOLUTELY" move to the attic. And no, I don't consider fixing a bug every so long or making it work with a new FG feature every so long is "regularly improving". Obviously, aircraft with reasonable amounts of detail (maybe 3-4 stars or better) are exempt in my view. But that's assuming "3" star rated planes are actually 3 stars, which according to the wiki, means:


  *   3: FDM tuned for rate of climb and cruise Pilot Operating Handbook (PoH) performance numbers
  *   3: Accurate startup procedure, tuned autopilot with cockpit controls matching real aircraft systems, generic failure modelling (Vne, +ve/-ve G, gear limits). No unrealistic systems.

I can say with "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" that there are "LOADS" of planes with 3 stars in that category that "DO NOT" deserve it.

> Now let me, as aircraft developer, break this down to you. The first step you need to do to start working on improving aircraft like that is "rm -rf *"

This is only true for experienced developers adopting poorly developed aircraft. When I've taken over development, I start from scratch and rebuild with IntegratedSystems. So yes, I do that except for the 3D models and textures. But if you're just starting out, then working on existing code is not a bad idea.

> In one of my emails I suggested a better metadata systen, which would be the closest way to solve the issue "the rating way". Neverthlessly this is not the way to go

I don't agree. Fixing the rating problem would improve aircraft selection by launcher, and thus discoverability of higher quality aircraft.

> Take for example Josh, I think as for right now, in my opinion, he is the very best aircraft developer in FlightGear.

Well that's very nice of you to say, but I wouldn't say I am the "best". I'm not even a professional programmer like some others - I believe my strengths are in re-engineering real systems in a simulator... my programming certainly isn't "the best" (nor is my understanding of aerodynamics). But I'm glad you like my work.

> I tried to make a list of all aircraft models available in FGAddon and rate them properly.

Oh boy, I went through that a few years ago and gave up after about 100 aircraft, I got tired of writing the same thing over and over and over again.

________________________________

Note that I have not read all the replies, so apologies if I touched on anything that was already said.

On the rating side, I really think maybe more "reviews" of planes could be published, to help discoverability of high-quality aircraft. But developers should "CERTAINLY NOT" review their own aircraft.

Kind Regards,

--
Josh Davidson

________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 15:46
To: FlightGear developers discussions <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] The endless influx of low-quality, low-realism, quantity-over-quality aircraft into FGAddon

The complaint brought up by SP-NTX is one I hear quite often with the
new FG users I try to help.

This can boil down to simply, how important it is to satisfy the
expectations.

I believe we have said all or most of what is to say about the point.

Along the decades, we already tried ways and manners to detect "the
aircraft's everyone like", and I think it is safe to say, this does not
work well, since we come back again and again on the matter.

Perhaps the it is not possible to "judge/rate/evaluate" the best
aircraft's ...
Perhaps we should do the contrary, something like creating a
'FGAddons-B' or anything 'B' that would contain the models who clearly
yet need development.

'B' as easy accessible than the 'developed one' but clearly labelled:
"Aircraft still needing (basic) development.

I am sure Emmanuel would not mind. Emmanuel is stating quite openly his
models are meant to be developed further by other developers.

Albeit, the benefit could/would be double.
1.
Clear away the many 'potentials future good aircraft's ' and offer more
visibility to those models developers already invested in half of their
life. :)

2.
FG quality can be built based on better models, whilst the 'other
models' are not forgotten, but do not obfuscate the good work we all do.

Kind regards
Lawrence




On 2026-05-21 12:26, David Hudach wrote:
> I think this is a well thought out, well written post. And I think it's
> important. We mustn't forget the difference between a user and a
> contributor/developer/tinkerer. From that perspective, I agree 100%
> that a
> typical user will associate something broken with the application,
> brand
> itself. I have to believe most of us have been in that position more
> than
> once in our lives. So it kind of boils down to what the end game is for
> FG.
> If it's just to be thought of as a "game" or playground where people
> can do
> what they want AND contribute their experiments to be available to all
> users, then I do think the end result will be that the FG brand or
> image
> will suffer. And if that's the case, why not just call it a day,
> consider
> FG done, why continue to make improvements? I think because the goal is
> to
> continue to advance FG as the premier flight simulator. So from that
> standpoint, I don't know how it's possible to ignore the peripheral
> issues
> that impact how FG is seen.
>
> So I wonder, how do other open source projects create and enforce a set
> of
> standards? I can only imagine something like sqlite being released
> where
> people have made contributions that end up resulting in incorrect query
> results. Yes, there are differences between a flight simulator and a
> database, but conceptually, shouldn't the product reflect the project
> standards?
>
> I don't have any answers here because, as it turns out, I don't really
> know
> enough about how a large open source project actually works. I've
> expressed
> some opinions in the past and was well schooled about how my view was
> skewed. And that's fine, I accept that and submit my plea of ignorance.
> But
> I guess conceptually, maybe even naively, I think that a project should
> be
> able to enforce a set of standards.
>
> Sometimes a user just wants to download and run an application. If it's
> broken (and I'm going to assume that flaws in aircraft behavior may be
> considered broken), then that user may be gone forever. Worse, that
> person
> may tell others. And now it's the domino effect. I know I'm just
> elaborating on these two very important points:
>
>
>
> *P.S. I intentionally used words "currency", "brand", "value". If
> anyone
> wants to argue that these concepts do not apply to open source project,
> you
> are actively damaging the FlightGear more than contributing to it
> P.P.S.
> End user experience is the key to get more members -> possibly more
> developers.*
>
> I think it's an important that a project like this have this
> discussion.
>
> Many years ago the lead developer in my job made this comment:
> "Developers
> really shouldn't do QA testing because most developers will test to
> make
> sure things they've done work. But a user isn't going to make
> assumptions.
> They are going to use the product like, well, a user. And that's how we
> find out if changes break other things." And so from an FG development
> approach, testing kind of seems to be about making sure that changes
> don't
> break things. But there is another world, the user world. And even if
> the
> application isn't broken, per se, it's may be broken for the user
> experience. I don't know how that can be ignored.
>
> Dave
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 5:29 AM SP-NTX -FlightGear <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> First of all this is only my opinion, so feel free to disagree with
>> it.
>> Also no disrespect to Emmanuel; I respect him as a person and this is
>> nothing personal.
>>
>>
>> The idea for this mail came from one of FlightGear Polska member, but
>> I
>> decided to rewrite it, having more experience in FlightGear.
>>
>>
>> FGAddon is drowning in continuous influx of low-quality aircraft
>> simulations. The FGAddon repository turned into a literal dumping
>> ground of
>> HUNDREDS of placeholder-tier models that look, fly, and behave in a
>> completely counter-realistic manner.
>>
>>
>> I have developed many different things to FlightGear over the years.
>> Take
>> the PZL Koliber simulation, which I spend countless hours ensuring the
>> FDM
>> matches the performance curves, hours of modeling, coding, I still
>> have
>> doubts whether this is something I would like to release in the
>> FGAddon, or
>> whether it is a good enough product to offer to others. You might seem
>> surprised I call this a product but this is what it is - the fact it
>> is
>> free, open source doesn't change the fact that by adding something to
>> FGAddon you offer the end user a product, which if he or she will find
>> valuable enough, will use it (here: fly the aircraft).
>>
>>
>> And here we come to the aircraft models I talk about - not only do
>> they
>> have NO positive value for me, they, in my opinion, have a negative
>> one.
>> Not only do they make me avoid using them, they make me *avoid
>> searching
>> and using planes from the FGAddon in the first place*.
>>
>>
>> Turn on FlightGear right now with *any* aircraft. What do you see
>> first?
>> End user is seeing the "FlightGear" name on splash screen and then is
>> met
>> with aircraft of various quality. The typical end user does not
>> differentiate between aircraft author and FlightGear itself
>> whatsoever.  If
>> aircraft is bad then they (end users) associate the bad quality
>> aircraft
>> with the "FlightGear" name. In business if a brand releases 5 amazing
>> products and 95 broken ones the brand image is ruined. If we treat
>> FGAddon
>> as official FlightGear marketplace then FGAddon becomes the brand
>> itself.
>> When the repository is flooded with placeholder-quality models, it
>> dilutes
>> the brand and destroys the trust of the end user. A user gets burned
>> twice
>> by a bad plane and they assume all planes are garbage, hence why so
>> many
>> people say FG has low quality aircrafts compared to other simulators.
>> They
>> won't even find these high quality aircraft simulations if they have
>> already closed the launcher in frustration.
>>
>>
>> Even if a mod costs 0$ it costs the user time and attention (!). The
>> user
>> has to browse the launcher, download the plane, wait for it to load,
>> and
>> learn how to fly it. If they do all that and the product is broken or
>> behaves like a brick with cardboard wings and UFO-powered engine the
>> developer didn't give them a free asset to the game but wasted the end
>> user
>> time. In fact in the modern world, the time is a currency.
>>
>>
>> Yesterday I was looking for nice aircraft to fly, to test something
>> new
>> etc. To my surprise I saw not one but TWO DIFFERENT simulations of
>> ercoupe.
>> Damn, had they had different thumbnail, name or description at
>> least...
>> Nope, for the end user they were the same aircraft. Unless you of
>> course
>> notice the shiniest model shader and stupidly bright navigation lights
>> in
>> FlightGear, then you know who made that second "model". Let me tell
>> you one
>> thing: Neither ercoupe simulation is good, but the "new" one has
>> NOTHING TO
>> DO WITH ANY KIND REALISM WHATSOEVER. The way the FDM behaves on the
>> "new,
>> yasim" version is not only generic but as I stated before,
>> counter-realistic.
>> Now imagine someone new to FlightGear who wants to fly ercoupe in the
>> simulation. What is the first result when you search for it? The
>> helijahware.... version. Now coming back to the point I made before:
>> will
>> the user dedicate even more time to try the other one or just give up?
>> You
>> know what, this right here is not only damaging the reputation of
>> FGAddon
>> as FlightGear addon marketplace, but is a suicide of brand image of
>> the
>> project in the first place. WHY IN THE HELL WE HAVE DOUBLE INSTANCES
>> OF ONE
>> AIRCRAFT, THE SAME AIRCRAFT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
>>
>>
>> One could argue that the models I consider placeholder-quality are a
>> good
>> base for new developer to work on something ans improve the existing
>> thing.
>> Now let me, as aircraft developer, break this down to you. The first
>> step
>> you need to do to start working on improving aircraft like that is "rm
>> -rf
>> *". Also try to improve the FDM of these aircraft e.g. work on new
>> JSBSim
>> simulation and you'll be met with a wall of "Yasim is the only
>> correct...ahhh" whatever.
>>
>>
>> Yesterday I was chatting with my friend who is a new member of the
>> community. Guess what he said? "I don't know for what reason do we
>> have a
>> Citroen in aviation-related game" and that aircraft models available
>> in the
>> launcher are "tragic". Doesn't this raise any concern? I told my
>> friend to
>> download Mirage 2000 yesterday and he didn't know which one to
>> download, as
>> we have two, one - well maintained JSBSim model, and other -
>> unmaintained
>> placeholder quality generic yasim model... What do you think, had he
>> downloaded the wrong one would he be willing to check the correct one
>> or
>> label Mirage 2000 as bad aircraft in the simulator? Do we have to rate
>> the
>> aircraft simulations by how many megabytes they have? Really?
>>
>>
>> Someone in a while will suggest a new rating system. First of all this
>> is
>> not going to solve the issue whatsoever. Second, without a doubt
>> *some*
>> airplanes will still have stupidly high ratings compared to their
>> absolute
>> lack of realism. In one of my emails I suggested a better metadata
>> systen,
>> which would be the closest way to solve the issue "the rating way".
>> Neverthlessly this is not the way to go
>>
>>
>> One would advertise that FG has over 700 aircraft models available in
>> the
>> launcher, amazing!... And then you have the user joining the
>> FlightGear,
>> downloading one of these *700* highly realistic aircrafts and...
>> You know, sometimes quality is more important than quantity. Take for
>> example Josh, I think as for right now, in my opinion, he is the very
>> best
>> aircraft developer in FlightGear. Take a look at MD-11, MD-82 aircraft
>> families. These are role model aircrsft simulations. And they became
>> available in the FGAddon... just about 2/3 years ago? And even for a
>> new
>> developers joining FG, they should take a look at these role model
>> aircrafts I mentioned, NOT THE RM -RF * QUALITY THING WHICH BARELY
>> RESEMBLES AIRCRAFT...
>> Let me state this one more time: End users are left with a bad
>> impression,
>> and that is a massive barrier for having more active pilots and
>> contributors.
>>
>>
>> I tried to make a list of all aircraft models available in FGAddon and
>> rate them properly. I given up after doing 20, and I wasn't the first
>> one
>> to do that. And you know what? Almost all aircraft models are highly
>> overrated. But this is an unrelated issue, which origins from the
>> base,
>> major issue of placeholder-quality models I mentioned.
>>
>>
>> I am not going to propose a solution for the issue. I guess you can
>> already tell what my solution would be, although for stating it I
>> would be
>> hated even more than I am currently. Neverthlessly, I am curious what
>> is
>> yours take on the issue and what solutions would you propose.
>>
>>
>> Few more things from me:
>> 1. Better rating system is not a solution
>> 2. The fact we as experienced FG users tend to avoid these aircraft is
>> based on experience which new users doesn't have
>> 3. The problem is actually constantly getting bigger, as the number of
>> no-quality planes constantly increases
>> 4. No disrespect to helijah whatsoever, this is a system issue not
>> personal issue
>> 5. This is my personal opinion based on my experience, the e-mail
>> other
>> user wanted to send, as well as what I heard from others in the
>> community
>> 6. FGAddon is not the only way to download aircraft and addons - there
>> are
>> other ways to do it, so this wouldn't be "limiting the freedom of
>> contribution"
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> SP-NTX
>>
>>
>> P.S. I intentionally used words "currency", "brand", "value". If
>> anyone
>> wants to argue that these concepts do not apply to open source
>> project, you
>> are actively damaging the FlightGear more than contributing to it
>>
>> P.P.S. End user experience is the key to get more members -> possibly
>> more
>> developers.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Flightgear-devel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.sourceforge.net%2Flists%2Flistinfo%2Fflightgear-devel&data=05%7C02%7C%7C736da3698a39439782ca08deb77a32f1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639149932676366010%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sdVcaM2k6u4mBhZH%2F0aGrRRc%2FJNENE8Em3lbvnKn1oY%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.sourceforge.net%2Flists%2Flistinfo%2Fflightgear-devel&data=05%7C02%7C%7C736da3698a39439782ca08deb77a32f1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639149932676405237%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tHK%2BI7HYCeg3Mkf7gWU%2FjrEKeFby9xUFe6p2sJAxSJc%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel>


_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.sourceforge.net%2Flists%2Flistinfo%2Fflightgear-devel&data=05%7C02%7C%7C736da3698a39439782ca08deb77a32f1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639149932676425134%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ptq%2FL6Zj%2B9v3GtbDW%2B2nDDECTmFB%2B07xclmn8FY8F0Q%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel>

_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel