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

I guess I look at it this way. If the intent isn't to make FG a realistic
flight simulator, then why put all of the time and effort into realistic
scenery, live weather, accurate instrumentation and data (GPS, VOR, etc).
Why not just call it a game and be done with it. Why put in all the work to
model the real world on just about every level except for the actual
airplane itself for which FG exists? It seems paradoxical to me. The fact
that gamers "play" FG is fine. It doesn't mean that the goals should be
watered down. If FG is here to make the gamers happy because it's easy and
realism be damned, then create an FG fork to that end. Either that or build
a scoring system into FG and make it a true game. Yes, FG creates a broad
universe, but I take exception to the idea that it's not a single 'product"
whether used commercially or not. If it's not intended to be a realistic
flight simulator, then what is it? State the goal, state the philosophy,
state what it is.

On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 12:51 PM Gary Neely <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>

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