Talk:FlightGear

message: Hooray, glad that this article has picked up momentum - the article a few months ago was no ware near adequete enough for such an important piece of software, but now it's really taking shape, great :)
I'll try and contribute as much as i can to this article but most things i'm familiar with have already been written :P -Benbread 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yay 

message: I'm thinking it would be good to remove all external links except the one to the official website. The reviews could be summaries in a little section I guess, and the rest is really only relevant for people who already have the game. Any other views on this? --Lijnema 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. Serious policy violation and it sets a poor tone for future article work. I'll see if I can work on expanding this properly, trying to get into Flightgear right now. Chris Cunningham 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, perhaps I was a bit harsh. If you think it would be a good idea to have that link, I have no objections. --Lijnema 01:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I can understand reluctance to include a list, but the importance and nature of the software to FlightGear is critical. For instance, the FDM are what simulate the aircraft inside FlightGear, and both the GUI and libraries are part of the binaries! I will agree it would be better if it were written into a paragraph, rather then a list. However, deleting outright it is like  writing about an aircraft, but not mentioning its engines or construction materials.  Fliega 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very few software articles contain full lists of their dependencies and libraries. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This information is better located on external, dedicated sites. The same goes for the huge collection of aircraft, which i've left for now because it was de-listified. However, if this article is ever going to get a GA rating it must try to avoid sending readers to sleep with large lists of facts and statistics which hold little intrinsic value. Chris Cunningham 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the de-listing concept, but FlightGear is a special case when it comes to its content. Keep in mind FlightGear is not strictly software, it is a project, and its focus is on a release of code,  not some sort of software title in the traditional sense. Fliega 15:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see that this is a valuable distinction. MAME is a "project" in the sense of recreation / preservation too, but it doesn't contain an inline list of every one of the thousands of titles it supports. Chris Cunningham 15:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  The dependencies of the code are not analogous to a emulator supporting a title, but rather the reverse situation. Consider, articles list the OS a program needs to run on- its logical that an article about code list the software it needs. Fliega 16:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And, once again, most software articles mention such dependencies only where particularly pertinent, and generally in passing. You seem to be arguing that FlightGear is more analogous to a distribution than an application. I really can't see how this is the case. Chris Cunningham 18:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever the analogy, the dependent code is pertinent to the FlightGear project, code releases, and application. As you point out, there are cases where software articles mention dependencies- this article would be such a case. Fliega 19:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm. Anyway, at least it isn't just a huge list now. Thanks for your work in expanding this article. We'll see what review picks up in the future. Chris Cunningham 23:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you... your candor and patience in the matter is duly appreciated. Fliega 01:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Software

message: I think we need to add more screenshots from various versions of the program to show a better history of it. Eric Cartman's alter ego (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add more screenshots 

message: I couldn´t find anything about Force Feedback. Is there any roadmap to implement this feature? 84.173.206.130 (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I´m also intrested in a touring motorglider model. 84.173.221.106 (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Force Feedback roadmap 

message: "Finally, Simple DirectMedia Layer is a software library which is used for compiling."
SDL is not a build tool - presumably they use it to handle user-input...? -Wootery (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SDL 

message: Do you think it might be okay if we moved the picture gallery to another page? It seems to take up a lot of space.--Yoonsikp (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I think it is overkill. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries. The images should be on the Wikimedia Commons, anyway. We can just link to the category over there. We just have to choose which ones to keep in the article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So how would we start? Not really good with wikipedia :P--Yoonsikp (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just remove it now. All the screenshots can be viewed when you follow the Commons template in the external links section. The other sims don't have many images on their articles: X-Plane (simulator), Microsoft Flight Simulator.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

text: If you've downloaded the latest version, maybe you could get a screenshot for the article? Right now we've got a 'preview' version in the infobox.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

text: But the GUI is identical!--Yoonsikp (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the picture Gallery 

message: The article and the home page clearly state that the source code is licensed under the GPL. Nobody says nothing about the media. Which license is it under?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.117.4 (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  media license = ? 

message: I think we should another article called "History of FlightGear" Then we could use all the pictures we have.--Yoonsikp (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Article started we do have an article now called History of FlightGear made by me.--Yoonsikp (talk) --142.161.77.214 (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Does anybody want to review my article?--142.161.77.214 (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really just the same as this article though. If we removed the history from this one, all we'd be left with is a stub.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article 

message: A product called "No. 1 Real Flight Sim Ever" at http no1realflightsimever.info  is currently being touted on Facebook. It looks just like the other commercial copies of FG, and might be worth investigating. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another commercial copy? 

message: Machine Design August 3, 2000, Linux gaming: publishers not playing with the penguin? Deutsche Presse-Agentur April 19, 2003, Aerospace America January 1, 2005, , , , , , , . -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Source material for the FlightGear article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on FlightGear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100228145133/http://www.flightsim.com:80/main/review/fltgear.htm to http://www.flightsim.com/main/review/fltgear.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927201051/http://www.pcmag.co.uk/computeractive/downloads/2163376/flightgear to http://www.pcmag.co.uk/computeractive/downloads/2163376/flightgear
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100811193406/http://en.softonic.com/awards2009 to http://en.softonic.com/awards2009
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hey there:). I'm a new editor who was part way through bringing the article up-to date. The project is 20 years old, and most of the text looked 10+ years out of date. I added some text on the physics of flight, and visual cues & rendering a day ago. I'm not familiar with this talk page stuff or wiki markup (I used the visual editor) so I'll quote the above and reply if you don't mind.
> Eik Corell: "For the first one, this is meaningless for the average reader and it's not something that is covered in normal video game articles."
Thank you for your diligence and volunteering to maintain articles, but Flightgear is not a video game. I'm not sure what should be acceptable given what Flightgear is, but I'll leave what I know for the consideration of the good people here.
Flightgear about:
> "The goal of the FlightGear project is to create a sophisticated and open flight simulator framework for use in research or academic environments, pilot training, as an industry engineering tool, for DIY-ers to pursue their favorite interesting flight simulation idea, and last but certainly not least as a fun, realistic, and challenging desktop flight simulator. We are developing a sophisticated, open simulation framework that can be expanded and improved upon by anyone interested in contributing."
The general values of the forces behind development development appears to be this (in an opensource project it varies depending on individuals contributing).. Although there's notable use of FlightGear as a desktop simulator (note simulator for exploration of flight - not a game) a lot of the contributors and forces to date have been from technical communities & backgrounds as I understand it. 
It just so happens that various commercial games have flying vehicles, and some commercial simulators selling to casual users have different parts of flight simulated - by means of varying approximation. 
Having flying craft doesn't equate to software having the same goals or use. For instance the approach of YASim, based on blade elements and the artwork provided, is used in some commercial software. The YASim page describes the approach as a "crude approximation at best" aimed at subsonic simulation - it starts to fall apart at transonic and is bad at supersonic & hyper-sonic. For other methods like JSBSim "you will need more than a casual knowledge of aerodynamics", and the author stated he would have likely stayed with JSBSim had he had that knowledge initially. So YASim is intended towards people with less understanding of aerodyamics. That's just different approaches within FlightGear. Other commercial games (and casual simulators) have varying levels of things modeled - it depends on entertainment goals, common expertise of game developers in aerodynamics, and keeping development expenses down to meet profit targets. 
JSBSim for instance was benchmark tested by NASA against other professional simulations in the Space industry for suitability for R&D (accuracy, numerical stability etc). All the simulators tested were deemed to be performing well: https://nescacademy.nasa.gov/flightsim/ 
From p.24 of the executive summary 
> The eventual matches between simulation tools, achieved only after several iterations of comparing results and correcting mistaken assumptions and other errors, was good enough to indicate agreement between a majority of simulation tools for all cases published. Most of the remaining differences are explained and could be reduced with further effort
''
The assessment provided anonymity to results and they are listed on p12: "Participating in the assessment were participantsfrom NASA AmesResearch Center (ARC), ArmstrongFlight Research Center (AFRC), JohnsonSpace Center (JSC), LangleyResearch Center (LaRC),and Marshall Space FlightCenter (MSFC), and an open-source simulation tool development project (i.e., JSBSim)."
From the space shuttle article
> JSBSim, is quite capable of orbital dynamics, in fact it has been benchmarked against several test cases in a 6-DoF simulation code comparison by NASA.
> JSBSim is not a game engine, it is a professional simulation code that just happens to be OpenSource.
I was just starting some updates, didn't really even touch the flight dynamics engines part of physics. I did envisage there would be a lot of reorganisation, expanding to be easier to understand, and possibly culling. But I also expected there would be a lot of things to update after neglect for so many years. That includes a bunch of areas I was intending to leave to others.
I don't know what type of information would be suitable to Wikipedia's standards for a project with FlightGear's goals and progress - if I work on this more eventually I may create a copy in a sandbox first.
(Perhaps the visual editor could be used for talk pages too!)
Kind regards, and apologies for not knowing wiki markup or proper talk page formatting.
Ssvv7 (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply with quick pov, from a new editor who created some recent text additions

message: Should the content that was removed from the article in this edit (and additional content subsequently in this) be restored per WP:PRESERVE/WP:REMOVAL, pending, if needed, much more granular discussion of individual aspects? LjL (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: substantial article trimming 

message: In relation to the above entry and my recent edits, I looked through the article again and I realized something: The majority of the universities listed are not official users or partners, but merely the place where students have made projects or submitted papers that somehow use FlightGear in their research. This is obviously not the same as universities using the software, as the list would imply in its current state. I propose keeping the companies in the way that I included them in the "commercial redistribution" to which I added the ones that seemed the most notable or official, mainly the company entries. I'm somewhat weary of the premise of listing them as well per #7 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "Simple listings without context information...", "listings of business alliances, clients,". There is very little in the way of third-party sources covering how or why the company use, university use and other entities using it is notable; so back to information for the sake of information. I've left the list for now. Eik Corell (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: List of companies using the product

message: overlaps with [[FlightGear#JSBSim] fgnievinski (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirected rather than merging, given that there was no referenced content on the other page, a long-standing issue there. Klbrain (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[JSBSim]] into [[FlightGear]]