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

More users = more potential contributors, whether developers, designers or
$$ contributions.

On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 8:04 AM Patrizio Melis <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>

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