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

I'm only loosely following this thread, so apologies if I'm missing
something bigger.

The issue regarding aircraft ratings was bought up a few months ago. For
those not aware, we have an issue tracker on GitLab specifically for
FGAddon aircraft. A tag was made specifically for aircraft where people
feel that the ratings are incorrect, and everyone can discuss either in an
individual task per aircraft, or the open "generic" task, which can be
found here.

https://gitlab.com/flightgear/aircraft-bugs/-/work_items/18

Once an agreement is made, we can then go ahead and make that change in
FGAddon while linking to that discussion. Changes like these to aircraft,
when not made by their main developer, should have a documented discussion
where the thought process is clearly laid out so that it can be seen that
it was a community made decision rather than a single person's own opinion.

On Fri, 22 May 2026, 19:16 David Hudach, <[email protected]> wrote:

> I confess that I do not know the inner workings of the FG project. But I
> don't know if it really matters. I do believe that the efforts are sincere.
> However, in my opinion there does seem to have been some push back to the
> impact FG has on the average user experience which was the main point of
> the initial post. And I'm simply saying if we can't agree that broken or
> unrealistic aircraft can impact the image or brand, then what is the point.
> Why strive for realism on every level except the actual airplane? What is
> released to the public should represent the best working aircraft.
> Admittedly I was venting but trying to make the point that though many
> people think of FG as a game, it's not a game, it's a true flight simulator.
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 1:35 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 5/22/26 1:09 PM, David Hudach wrote:
>> > 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 to me that the separation between the (ad hoc) development
>> groups is
>> not known to you... if it is, you seem to be, somehow, glossing over it...
>>
>> first we have the ""world simulation team" that has developed the world
>> simulator... then we have the various "craft simulator teams" that
>> develop the
>> various craft they decide to work on... each team works to develop their
>> chosen
>> area to some level of accuracy...
>>
>> all the teams work together with the "world simulation team" so their
>> craft can
>> operate properly within the world and the "world simulation team" works
>> with the
>> "craft simulation teams" to help make the world easier to interface with
>> for the
>> craft to work properly... sometimes this means adding new routines...
>> sometimes
>> it means deprecating old methods and introducing new ones...
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

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