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

At 90 I have a different perspective than some.

In 1958 Naval training, I learned how to orient and make a low frequency
range approach in a wooden box with a few instruments and a crude
version of a TV (F80) FDM.

The standing joke was that nobody could land it without crashing. Yet, when
we went on to fly such approaches under the hood in a real plane, we knew
how.
The point is that the amount of "realisim" required is relative to what
needs to be learned.

I also have a retired airline pilot friend, who told me that he made his
first landing in a new type aircraft, after having trained in the
simulator,  with a full load of passengers. The point here is that the
degree of sophistication required is also relative to the needs of the user.

I once complained that the De Havelland Beaver ( which has both a wheels
and an amphibious version,  a decent cockpit in which all switches and
levers work manually by mouse, and an FDM that seemed to about right for
it's type, failed to make the filtered short list of FGaddons.
Subsequently, I was embarrassed learn that the reason was that the author
had only given himself a 2 in one of the categories.

When I first joined,there was a short list of default aircraft: the Navion,
the F14, the DC-3 and maybe a few others, that I can't recall. It wasn't a
bad introduction.

If such an approach were retaken today, it would be ideal to have have one
sample per general type of aircraft.

In passing, I note no mention of rotary wing aircraft, of which Flight Gear
has some 30, or more.

Kind Regards, Frank



the fdm





On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 9:01 AM Keith Paterson <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Sorry I knew it was a mistake to tea bag here. I'm a software architect.
> Conway's law states that the architecture of a system will reflect the
> organisation structure. Flightgear perfectly reflects this law.
>
> Keith
> On 24/05/2026 18:04, David Hudach wrote:
>
> Please state Conway’s Law as I’m not familiar. If we need to define
> realism then maybe the discussion has no sensible purpose. I will say that
> the goal isn’t perfection, just continuing to strive to model the real
> world. I thought we all know that, hence realistic flight dynamics,
> instruments and so forth.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
> On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 7:24 AM Keith Paterson <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You'd have to define "realism" first, but the important point is Conway's
>> law. In terms of my definition of realism, artificial traffic influeces
>> downstream user expirience.
>>
>> Keith
>> On 24/05/2026 13:46, David Hudach wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn’t say others could care less about what you are working on. But
>> aside from that, isn’t there a common goal, a desired end result whether
>> stated or not.  I think that is the point. What is your goal in your area?
>> Is realism a consideration?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 2:09 AM Keith Paterson <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Flightgear-devel mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Flightgear-devel mailing [email protected]://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Flightgear-devel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing [email protected]://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