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

I agree.
And I think that if a plane is really broken, the author should be
notified; and if there is no effort to fix it in a reasonable time, it
should be retired to the attic .
Frank

On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 3:06 PM David Hudach <[email protected]> wrote:

> gallon:
>
> > "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."
>
> I think you are making my point here that realism is the goal. But because
> you know how to follow up when an aircraft is "broken" doesn't necessarily
> mean that someone new to FG will know what to do. We, the developers, the
> experienced FG users are not really in a position to understand what a new
> user will or should do. As to the 172 turning right, sure, it's a learning
> experience as to a sense of realism. But isn't that again the point -
> realism.
>
> Well, I think anything else I say is simply going to be restatements of
> what I've said or what has been said.
>
> Hopefully something positive, material and tangible comes out of this
> discussion. I think SP's post was well written, well thought out and the
> points were eloquently stated.
>
> Dave
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 2:42 PM gallonf&z <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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