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

Sorry, premature send.

All I was going to say to wrap it up is, how is that a problem. That 
isn't even talking about adjusting each discipline individually, which 
lets you refine it even more. The rating system is well thought out and 
very flexible, in my opinion. It appears to be designed to account for 
the subjective nature of rating things. Could it be better, maybe, could 
it be more prominent, sure. Could there be some kind of link to send a 
"new" user to verbiage explaining what fgaddons is there for and what 
users should expect to find in it, absolutely.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 5/22/2026 6:53 AM, SP-NTX -FlightGear wrote:

> Some of you for some reason can not see the end user perspective, 
> despite the fact I clearly stated it in the first post.

That is your opinion, I am a "end user" and I don't see it that way. 
FlightGear is not a commercial product with typical "end users". Why 
should I care if someone walks away because the first aircraft they see 
was the yellow glider and didn't bother to look a little deeper.

You are free to make a hanger, add only the aircraft you think deserving 
and offer the hanger link for "users" to add to the launcher. You can 
then advertise you have the definitive FlightGear hanger with only the 
best aircraft and promote the heck out of it so our community doesn't 
lose more of the more discerning users, if that is your thing.

My thing is to use FlightGear as a sandbox to continue to build upon. 
Limiting the creation of aircraft or any vehicle to a arbitrary standard 
is counter productive to expanding new ideas, in my opinion.

As far as 100 yellow gliders in fgaddons, it hasn't happened, its a red 
herring. In fact no one would keep commit access to fgaddons if they did 
that. There is a standard, it's just not to your liking. But that's OK 
because your not the one that contributed any part of that 
infrastructure or resource and others have worked hard to provide 
alternatives. Such as an easy way to offer a collection for inclusion in 
the launcher.

There are many ideas that come up in the community, they come with 
unseen costs if not carefully vetted.

I would be very cautious about supporting any ideas that restricts or 
dismantles something that has been working well for so long, in my opinion.

That doesn't mean I am against improving any aspect of the project. But 
I don't think fgaddons and what is in it is any kind of a problem. You 
have the best in it already and you have "not the best". How does that 
turn someone away who should understand what that repository is? If they 
don't understand what the repository is, then I would be receptive to 
making a change to make sure someone trying FlightGear out for the first 
time be educated to understand what FlightGear is and what it isn't.

I keep hearing how unrealistic the ratings of certain aircraft are. I 
don't think that is true. It is subjective, and it shouldn't matter 
anyway. Set it more restrictive if your seeing too many aircraft that 
you don't think should be at the current setting. How does that cost us 
users? I am looking at it right now. There are 4 sliders.\

Wide open I get 672 vehicles

Step 1 with all 4 sliders 534 vehicles

Step 2 with all 4 sliders 331 vehicles

Step 3 with all 4 sliders 124 vehicles

Step 4 with all 4 sliders 43 vehicles

Only the best with all 4 sliders 10 vehicles

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I made 100 aircrafts called blue-yellow-glider[1-100], they are all 
different and should be added as separate aircrafts, also I rate them 6/5


What I mean by this is why in the hell you consider FGAddon being a 
sandbox the only viable option? I would perfectly understand it had it 
been the only easy option to download/host aircraft. Nowadays there are 
more tutorials on how to download aircraft from github gitlab etc. and I 
believe almost everyone has flown in aircraft downloaded from outside 
the FGAddon. By having *any* kind of guidelines for FGAddon other than 
"do whatever you want #freedom as long as GNU GPL' it would dramatically 
improve the end user experience. Someone made some Code of Conduct of FG 
a few days ago where it is PRECISELY differentiated between the 
contributors/users role in the project. Some of you for some reason can 
not see the end user perspective, despite the fact I clearly stated it 
in the first post.

Let's be real, no one will do anything about the issue whatsoever. You 
know what? Give me the commit access to FGAddon, I can rate the 
aircrafts, all of them. I have no heart whatsoever, I go by guidelines 
only, even if it means giving 1/5 rating.

If we want a rating to solve the issue:
1. Ratings have to be visible on the aircraft browsing page, not only 
after clicking it.
2. There needs to be a visible label whether the aircraft is Yasim or 
JSBSim. One could argue they won't understand, trust me when they see 
aircraft with (Yasim) in the name after some time they understand to 
avoid it.
3. New rating requirements need to be made, focusing more on realism, 
even if current 4/5 FDM aircraft will become 2

FGAddon on flightgear wiki is regarded as the official FlightGear 
Hangar. Why do you think turning it into a complete sandbox is a viable 
option?

Regards,
SP-NTX

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 5/21/2026 4:28 AM, SP-NTX -FlightGear 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://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

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