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

On 22/05/2026 23:04, [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...
>
I was reluctant to pitch in, but this post really agreed with my view. 
Basically I am "Team AI/ATC". Maybe we should ne more aware of Conway's 
law a bit more. Like you describe it we have more a bunch of teams than 
a single organisation. Each team has their own goals in my view. Mine is 
to improve the AI/ATC, which others couldn't care less about.

Keith