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

The issue of numerous low-fidelity models in the repository has been
present for 20 years or more. It's the nature of this particular open
source environment. Many solutions have been proposed, some implemented.
Different hangars, quality ratings, etc. There is no easy or best solution,
and I'm sure improvements will always be welcome. Frankly the issue has
never much troubled me.

It didn't take me long to discover which authors tend to provide superior
realism or fun. From my experience, learning of the more interesting models
comes not from browing the repository or wiki, but from learning of the
authors and interacting with other FG users, which has proven even more
rewarding than the models themselves.

Helijah/Emmanuel's planes demonstrate what can be achieved in Flightgear
even with a low fidelity effort. This has benefits for those who are
younger or those just beginning to get involved. Emmanuel often models
little-known historic aircraft, which are fun to see and might inspire
others to investigate creating a higher fidelity model. In my case, one of
his models inspired me to create a higher-fidelity 'Velocity'.

Flightgear sometimes has double instances of the same aircraft. Developers
have and should retain the ability to do this. Flightgear is not a place
where one person or even a group can dictate which model has the 'right' to
be the definitive model. This can be a good thing. For some years there was
a low-fidelity Lockheed 1049 in the repository. It was flyable but somewhat
bare-bones. I began work on my own version of this model, mostly as a
learning experience making flight instruments. That effort expanded and
eventially became the 1049H model which may still be in the repository.
Eventually the original model was dropped from the repository for various
reasons, but for a while there were two versions of effectively the same
aircraft. I think and hope the project is better for that situation.

Most FG developers are not professionals. Few developers have worked in the
simulation or gaming world. Many are new to the techniques required to
model systems and create 2D and 3D works. Since FG is not a professional
distribution, that inevitably means all but the very best and most popular
models are likley to be uneven or orphaned efforts. That's just one reason
why there may be multiple models. I'm OK with that.


On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 5:28 AM SP-NTX -FlightGear <
[email protected]> wrote:
---
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.
---

I've encountered this. When someone tells me that "X is the only correct
way to do Y" and the answer strikes me as suspect, then I investigate the
matter myself. All efforts in Flightgear are open to alternatives. Make a
new version. Promote it on the wiki and the forums. The community will
support multiple aircraft versions and offer guidance as to the pros and
cons of each.


On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 5:28 AM SP-NTX -FlightGear <
[email protected]> wrote:
---
"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?
---

In my opinion it does not. Why do we have non-aviation models? Because the
various physical models can support them, because sometimes they are useful
in the world scenarios, sometimes they are learning experiences, and
because sometimes they are just plain fun. I've witnessed creative
activities using some of these models that might astonish those now
questioning their presence. There may come a time when physical modeling of
environments and surfaces begins to blur the distinction of what
constitutes a non-aviation model. My wish-list would include hydrodynamic
modeling to allow sailing simulation within Flightgear, which would also
benefit flying boats and seaplanes. Non-flying models promote altenative
ideas and simulation, which can have great value for more serious functions.


On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 5:28 AM SP-NTX -FlightGear <
[email protected]> wrote:
---
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.
---

I don't subscribe to this view. Flightgear is not Firefox or Blender, where
the contributions result in a single 'product' used commercially.
Flightgear and its models present a broad universe of outputs with a very
different set of goals and appeal. I see Flightgear as a positive result of
its own nature. What drives some users away is sometimes the very thing
that attracts others. It did me.

-Gary
aka 'Buckaroo'
developer: Lockheed 1049H, Edgley Optica, Velocity XL RG (not the Helijah
Velocity), etc.
author: YASim documentation

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