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

The YASim vs JSBSim discussion comes up regularly, but I think we risk
missing a fundamental point: most FlightGear users are the same people who
develop it. This means FG is not a commercial product with a passive
audience, but an ecosystem where each FDM reflects the skills, time, and
goals of whoever builds it.

JSBSim
It’s true: JSBSim allows a more rigorous, data‑driven modeling approach,
based on aerodynamic coefficients, lookup tables, and cross‑checked
real‑world values. If the goal is high‑fidelity reproduction of a real
aircraft’s behavior, JSBSim is the right tool.

YASim
YASim was designed with a different philosophy: it is not meant to be a
full aerodynamic solver, but a simpler system to obtain plausible flight
behavior without reconstructing the entire aerodynamic dataset. For many
developers — especially those who want to “get a model flying” without
months of work — it is more than adequate.

UFO FDM
And then there are people like me, who have created impossible aircraft
that fly thanks to the UFO FDM. This alone shows that FG is not only a
realistic simulator, but also a creative environment where you can
experiment, play, test ideas, and simply have fun.

The real point

The realism of FlightGear does not depend on the FDM engine itself, but on
who uses it and for what purpose.

- Those who want a rigorous simulator will use JSBSim and search for real
data.

- Those who want a plausible model will use YASim.

- Those who want to experiment or relax will use the UFO or any other
approach.

FG is both things at once: a serious simulator and a creative sandbox. And
this dual nature exists precisely because the community is made of
developers who build what they want to use.

About “declassifying” less realistic aircraft

Some messages suggested “declassifying” or downgrading aircraft that are
not modeled with high‑fidelity data. I think this idea misunderstands how
FG works. FlightGear is not a curated commercial catalog: its aircraft
exist because someone cared enough to build them.

If we start labeling or downgrading models based on their FDM or realism
level, we risk:

- discouraging new contributors,
- reducing diversity in the hangar,
- and implicitly punishing developers who create for fun, education, or
experimentation.

A more constructive approach is simply to document the intended realism
level of each aircraft, as many maintainers already do. Transparency helps
users choose what they want, without devaluing anyone’s work.

In the end, there is no “absolute best” FDM: there is the tool that best
fits the objective. FlightGear thrives because it allows different
approaches, from aerodynamic purists to modelers who simply want to see
their aircraft flying. And this is also why, despite being capable of high
realism, FG is often overlooked by casual users who only want a relaxing
experience: FG requires participation, not passive consumption.

My two cents.

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