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

Wayne,

This could have been any topic at all. Any topic could have caused the
conversation to be contentious. And there is nothing wrong with that
because that can sometimes help. And if turns out something is a bad idea,
I'm ok with that. It's the underlying current that I found most
disheartening that I wrote here:

>>   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.

>>   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."


This is to me what makes it difficult to want to engage.

Thanks,
Dave


On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 10:49 PM Wayne Bragg <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>

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