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

Re wright flyer: In the absense of data, it is usually best to use "your best judgement"...

But this is not a problem for most craft.

I think the first part is verifying POH data.

From there, you can estimate response to input based on videos of the real. This is what I try to do.

Kind Regards,

--
Josh Davidson
________________________________
From: gallonf&z <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2026 15:37
To: FlightGear developers discussions <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 22/05/2026 23:04, [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel




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


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




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


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

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