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

As we can read, it is clearly not possible to look at "quality" using us 
all the same criteria.
Even the same person might lookup, for a few flights only, an aircraft 
with different criteria...

We could base the choice on some kind of sentry at longer term.

Like:
- every models starts being,
let us not say "B" to avoid hurting the feelings of whose have high 
expectations for their creation,
- but simply not "A" yet.

Then depending upon how much people use it (I mean use it, not just fly 
it for 2 minutes) it can soar up toward "A".

That way we do not have to do a "personal rating", that have invariably 
end up in disagreements,
and the 'election' toward the "A" sphere is the reflect of a real 
plebiscite.


And we might be well advised also starting addressing the question of 
the Aircraft/[name].

If Josh1 and FranckVMD do the same aircraft? the naming we use today 
already causes collisions/confusions.

And what if, Josh want to develop the B738 (modern version),
and time later he opt to also develop the old B738, (just for the sack 
of the beauty of some non glass-cockpit) ?
Naming them both B738 or B738-Josh also do not solve the problem. Just 
saying.

Kind regards
Lawrence





On 2026-05-22 01:00, Josh Davidson wrote:
> I would agree if you put "enjoyment" instead of quality. I think in a 
> "simulator", quality is tied much more closely to accuracy.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> --
> Josh Davidson
> ________________________________
> From: Chris Frey <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 7:33:52 PM
> To: FlightGear developers discussions 
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] The endless influx of low-quality, 
> low-realism, quantity-over-quality aircraft into FGAddon
> 
> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 11:25:13PM +0000, Josh Davidson wrote:
>> I don't think aircraft popularity has ANYTHING to do with its
>> quality. If tons of casual/gamer people fly a barely developed plane,
>> that absolutely does not mean it is high quality. I can name a couple
>> of detailed and fairly authentic aircraft that are less popular.
> 
> That's why I view popularity and simulation accuracy as two
> orthogonal vectors on the map of "quality".  Popular means it is
> at least fun enough to play, perhaps even to invest hours of your
> life into.  Meanwhile, accurate may not be fun, but may be very
> useful for training or practice.
> 
> - Chris
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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%7C0d6242c5e17348b858c908deb7918a39%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639150032919811013%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=34oiaHDfVzIoCJxlcgQAUUYh6KxXqrxURg0dS3AalhA%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