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

Hi Willi
I agree with you. Nothing in the PA28 is broken. It's FDM may be "generic",
as some say;  but it feels good to me, based on light civilian aircraft
I've flown; and
I think it's an excellent choice for someone wanting to teach themself to
fly, short of the rigors of a full blown flight school.
Regards, Frank


On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 2:43 PM Willie Fleming <[email protected]> wrote:

> Adrian
> Nothing to apologise for in that email  - it's excellent for us native
> English speakers.
>
> You also raise a very good point.
> Aircraft hire here in the UK is £250 and hour for beginners. Its expensive
> knowledge to gain.
> I am only semi qualified to judge if the PA-28 feels 'right'   and only in
> the very benign parts of the flight envelope.
> And I probably have more hours than most users but still would be
> reluctant to criticise anybody else's FDM unless it was just totally
> unreasonable.
>
> So we need to factor that in as well...
>
> Regards
> Willie Fleming
>
> On Sun, 24 May 2026, 20:22 Adrián Fernández, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As an amateur aircraft developer, a beginner, and without any contact
>> with real aviation, it is very difficult for me to correctly classify the
>> planes I currently maintain. How can I know if the FDM is correct or not,
>> if I have never flown a plane like that in the real life? Probably all of
>> them are misclassified. I try to have all systems and instruments
>> simulated, that all switches are in the correct position and work according
>> to what the POH indicates, and that the exterior model is as close to
>> reality as possible, but I do not feel qualified to correctly classify an
>> aircraft without being an aeronautical engineer or a real pilot. It is
>> likely that many developers experience the same thing and make the same
>> mistakes as I do.
>>
>> My apologies for the quality of the email writing. I used a translator...
>> :(
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Adrián
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *De:* gallonf&z <[email protected]>
>> *Enviado:* Domingo, 24 de Mayo de 2026 20:41
>> *Para:* FlightGear developers discussions <
>> [email protected]>
>> *Asunto:* Re: [Flightgear-devel] The endless influx of low-quality,
>> low-realism, quantity-over-quality aircraft into FGAddon
>>
>> What I do, and have done, is contact the author and try to explain where
>> the plane might be modified to better represent the real one.
>> In general, the response has been positive.
>>
>> By the way, have you noticed how often a new user, ignorant of slip
>> stream swirl, complains about the 172 turning right?
>> Maybe a few leave; but most remain and learn something.
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 1:30 PM David Hudach <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> All I'm saying is that the simulator should be a sincere effort to
>> reflect the realism of the aircraft and faithfully try to exhibit a decent
>> percentage of its flight characteristics. Let's flip it around and
>> disregard the new users entirely - maybe they don't matter, who needs them,
>> right? And I'll assume you are an experienced J3 pilot. You download FG and
>> fly the J3 and suppose its flight characteristics and behaviors are nothing
>> like the real airplane. You may not, but someone like you might dismiss FG
>> just on that basis alone because this is nothing at all like the real
>> airplane. So both ends of the spectrum matter. For the new initiate, if
>> something is broken, it's possible that this person is gone forever. The
>> experienced pilot flying a broken or unrealistic aircraft might shut it
>> down and never use it again because it's a weak attempt at flight
>> simulation or maybe even think it's, oh, I don't know, an arcade game.
>>
>> On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 2:12 PM gallonf&z <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> The point is that some types of aircraft need highly sophisticated and
>> detailed simulation; whereas, others don't.
>> The real j3s I flew in the '50s had no battery, no starter, no lights, no
>> radio, and had to be propped to start. The controls were loose
>> and the rudder over controlled, unless the heels were dragged on the
>> floor.
>>
>>
>>
>> l
>>
>> On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 12:56 PM David Hudach <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> This is a fair point: > The point here is that the degree of
>> sophistication required is also relative to the needs of the user.
>>
>> But again, what is the goal? Should FG strive to be the bare minimum of a
>> flight simulator because someone doesn't need realism (however one defines
>> it)? If that's the case, then we are firmly planted at the main thrust of
>> the original poster, that FG isn't an arcade game. As I've admitted a few
>> times, I do not know how an open source project works or how the developers
>> of FG collaborate. But just from following the posts and progress, it seems
>> clear to me that everyone is making every effort to advance the realism of
>> FG, to improve the product - from scenery to maps to instruments and on and
>> on. So why does it seem like at the very end there is, what I sense, a kind
>> of apathy to what this post is about. Or as we would say, "why does it seem
>> like some want to throw the baby out with the bath water?" I'm going to go
>> back and agree with the original point that initial impressions matter a
>> LOT to a new user who wants to try a new simulator. Impressions matter.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 12:36 PM gallonf&z <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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