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

On 5/27/2026 5:56 PM, David Hudach wrote:
> Yep, it could be any one or all of those things you mention. But if 
> you ask me it's the hidden and blatant messages and all around 
> attitude that make this entire conversation most alarming for me. The 
> tone of cliqueness is not, to me, imagined.
>
> Going back to the original post, I think it was to raise attention to 
> something that seemed important and he felt he should mention. Does 
> someone necessarily need to have a solution to bring up an issue? The 
> issue itself was meant to generate discussion on its merits with the 
> hope of seeking solutions. And much of it centered around the image of 
> FG to new users and you don't need me to point out how some in this 
> forum feel about new users, how many in this forum feel about someone 
> raising an issue without having the credibility of code commits to 
> back it.
>
> And it's true, there were many ideas thrown out about ratings and 
> potential improvements. But in the end, quite honestly, it's the 
> general tone of "who in the hell do you think you are coming in here 
> without commits and a proof of concept coded up to address the problem."
>
> I have no suggestions now what should happen. I think the tone has 
> spoken for itself. Ask the original poster what should happen.

Lets do a quick recap.

On 5/21/2026 4:28 AM, SP-NTX -FlightGear wrote:

 >First of all this is only my opinion, so feel free to disagree with it.

I and some others disagreed. Because we did it turned into a long rant 
about how attitudes are causing the project to fail.  It also triggered 
your attitude because you perceived dissenting opinion as dismissive 
and cliqueness attacks.

>FGAddon is drowning in continuous influx of low-quality aircraft simulations. The FGAddon 
repository turned into a literal dumping ground of HUNDREDS of 
placeholder-tier models that look, fly, and behave in a completely 
counter-realistic manner.

Maybe somewhat true, in as much as there are many aircraft that are less 
than realistic. But the characterization of "a dumping ground" and 
"drowning" implies it is a really negative thing which in reality was by 
design. FGaddons was never designed to be a repository for only polished 
aircraft. That is why there was a filter implemented.

>not only do they have NO positive value for me, they, in my opinion, 
have a negative one. Not only do they make me avoid using them, they 
make me _avoid searching and using planes from the FGAddon in the first 
place_.

No problem, their opinion. I have a completely different opinion and I 
think at least some others do as well.

>Turn on FlightGear right now with *any* aircraft. What do you see first?

You see is only the c172p, arguably the most realistic looking aircraft 
we have, mainly due to a concerted effort by multiple groups of 
developers over time, spending countless hours on development. Last I 
installed a new installation the "official" FlightGear aircraft 
repository has to be opted into before it shows you a single aircraft. 
All you see at first is the c172p.

Then a whole bunch of opinion about what new users see and think and 
experience, based on at least one new user that discussed it with them. 
Summering and assuming, or even emphatically stating it a truth, that it 
is what all new uses feel and the results that happens because of it.

Then ...

>I am not going to propose a solution for the issue. I guess you can already tell what my solution 
would be, although for stating it I would be hated even more than I am 
currently. Neverthlessly, I am curious what is yours take on the issue 
and what solutions would you propose.

It seems they knew this was going to be taken critically before they 
even posted it, to the point of hatred. Yet still asked for "your take 
on it".

 >When some gave their take on it, it turned into that long rant about 
how attitudes are causing the project to fail mentioned above.
>Few more things from me:
>1. Better rating system is not a solution

So no help here, fixing the rating system is not the answer.


>2. The fact we as experienced FG users tend to avoid these aircraft is based on experience which new 
users doesn't have

How do they possibly know what we experienced users do in regards to 
these aircraft?


>3. The problem is actually constantly getting bigger, as the number of no-quality planes 
constantly increases

So does the number of planes that are improved.


>4. No disrespect to helijah whatsoever, this is a system issue not personal issue

Just because you say it doesn't mean it is going to be taken the way you 
want it to be taken. I guarantee you I would be offended.

>5. This is my personal opinion based on my experience, the e-mail other user wanted to send, as well 
as what I heard from others in the community

OK, a valid opinion, apparently shared by at least a few and apparently 
rejected by an equal amount.


>6. FGAddon is not the only way to download aircraft and addons - there are other ways to do it, so this 
wouldn't be "limiting the freedom of contribution"

OK, but it would make these aircraft harder to find by scattering them 
to the wind and likely over time the community would loose them through 
natural decay.

That's pretty much it.

David, I'm honestly am not trying to be antagonistic. I am attempting to 
point out how this started and then evolved into what it is. I don't 
want anyone going away with an incorrect picture or assessment of what 
transpired, in the likelihood they don't want to read through the entire 
thread. I am pretty sure this recap is going to be picked apart 
and taken negatively by some. It's not meant to be negative or 
condescending. It's just how I see it and me defending my part in the 
discussion because of the really negative comments.

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