From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Video games (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Flight Simulation (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Flight Simulation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Flight Simulation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


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)

Another reason to be happy. Flightgear 2.0 preview is here!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

introductory editorial[edit]

A drawback of proprietary flight simulators is that it is not possible to add more features to the simulator or control the simulated environment oneself. Proponents of an open source flight simulator argue that such freedom is desirable for research projects and end users. For example, much of the aircraft and engine data is defined in XML files, allowing countless parameters be edited by users who want to explore the effects of various changes, without having to modify the source code or even re-compiling FlightGear.

I agree with this editorial, but it is just that-- a POV interpretation of selective facts to favorably present FlightGear. Its SOLE purpose is to explain why an open source simulator is better, nothing more. Because of its completely POV basis I have removed this section. Analyses and critiques like this DO NOT belong in an encyclopedia.

Comparisons belong in the reader's mind, not in an encyclopedia's words. A reader should NEVER be fed an opinion from a single article. Any evaluation should develop as the reader interprets ideas in is own mind. If open source simulators truely are better, then he should be able to gather that from NPOV articles on the appropriate subjects.

P.S. There are plenty of closed source simulators that allow the customizability (aircraft, engine performance etc.) described. X-Plane, Microsoft Flight Simulator even ATF Gold are a few.

External links[edit]

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)

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)

I think it would be a good idea to have

as a sort of meta-link (link to links) for those wanting more links. // Liftarn

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)

I removed the link to it seems to be an out-of-date front end to the official repository. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jentron2 (talkcontribs) 02:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


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)

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

Add more screenshots[edit]

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)

Force Feedback roadmap[edit]

I couldn´t find anything about Force Feedback. Is there any roadmap to implement this feature? (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I´m also intrested in a touring motorglider model. (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


"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)

Moving the picture Gallery[edit]

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)

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)
So how would we start? Not really good with wikipedia :P--Yoonsikp (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
But the GUI is identical!--Yoonsikp (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

media license = ?[edit]

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 (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New Article[edit]

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)

Article started we do have an article now called History of FlightGear made by me.--Yoonsikp (talk) -- (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody want to review my article?-- (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
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)

It's worth asking whether the history of this project is notable enough (validated by independent, reliable sources) to warrant its own article. Instead, take the history's most notable parts and make a very interesting, concise section on this article's page. czar · · 08:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Another commercial copy?[edit]

A product called "No. 1 Real Flight Sim Ever" at http 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)

And another? Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Source material for the FlightGear article[edit]

Machine Design August 3, 2000, Linux gaming: publishers not playing with the penguin? Deutsche Presse-Agentur April 19, 2003, Aerospace America January 1, 2005, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on FlightGear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

My recent edit[edit]

In my recent edit, I removed a lot of the article. I did this because as a whole, the article is unencyclopedic. There were legitimate sources amongst the stuff I removed, but the entire article is in such a bad shape it would need to be rewritten, and only then would the sources come into play. As I said in the edit summary: Incomprehensible to the average reader, very few reliable sources. As the article stood or stands, it's little else than one big description of technology used in the game, with no indication of why this is notable, as in little to no reliable third party coverage. Eik Corell (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The notability cannot seriously be under question, as anyone familiar with the subject will know that FlightGear is one of the leading flight simulators for personal computers, and the only open-source one of any real relevance. Your edit badly failed WP:PRESERVE and you actually just admitted that it removed some "legitimate sources", some of which may actually have helped assert the notability that you're not surreptitiously trying to put under question after removing the very third-party sources that could prove it. How does this make sense?
The article was technical, yes, as this is not even really a game, but a very complex piece of flight simulation software. If you can make it more understandable to the average reader, feel free to do so, but just removing content because it's technical is not justified. You can tag the article with Template:Technical if you want, and note that it states Please help improve this page to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details.
WP:GAMECRUFT isn't a license to serially wipe away the bulk of articles. This is not a "Non-notable articles and spinouts" (notability can be established easily), it is not "Numerous short articles" (you actually complained about the bulk of the single article), it is not "Detailed instructions" or even less "Strategy guides and walkthroughs" (it covers technical details but doesn't give instructions to do anything), it lists no "Excessive fictional details" or "Lists of characters lacking secondary sourcing" (as it's not even really a game with fictional elements), it doesn't substantially cover "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts" (even though that's a very wide one), it doesn't cover ephemeral items as "Cost" or "Rumors and speculation", it has a nice history in prose but not "Exhaustive version histories", it has no "Cast lists" that can apply to it, no "Unofficial translations", it doens't seem to state the "System requirements", nor any "Succession boxes" or or "Non-notable soundtracks".
Wow. That's all. WP:GAMECRUFT sure tries to be extensive, and yet, I don't see a single item that really applies here. Can you explain again why it justified all the non-consensual WP:REMOVAL even after your WP:BOLDness about it was shown to be objected to? LjL (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is an example. Here is another. For the first one, this is meaningless for the average reader and it's not something that is covered in normal video game articles. This is the technical mumbojumbo that I was talking about. The second one: Pricing information, unsourced accusations of lying facebook pages and coverage of irrelevant community bickering. The "gallery" section goes without saying; No good video game articles have an entire section dedicated to screenshots. Now for the sources: The majority are either primary sources, i.e or its wiki. A lot of the ones that aren't are used to support new versions being released, which is where the version histories part of WP:GAMECRUFT comes in. With these sources already being of questionable notability: Techwoo doesn't exist anymore, and the archive link I could find that worked has the page listed as having only 172 views. So that one isn't a good one. But I kept the reception section because the PC magazine source is a good one, whereas the Softtonic one is at least acceptable. So is the torrentfreak one. The freesoftwaremagazine one is not notable, as compared to the traffic that the Softonic website gets in comparison. I can't find any mention of FlightGear on, either, despite the article sourcing the claim that they use it to their website. Eik Corell (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have dug up some possible sources, with particular attention to ones that seem to imply or acknowledge notability of FlightGear within the subject of flight simulators (although I think it's hard to deny its notability):

I hope some of this can help the article and the citations can help clarify its subject's notability, also in light of the RfC below.

RfC: substantial article trimming[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing, per request at WP:ANRFC and WP:SNOW. Consensus to Restore, with [citation needed] tags whenever appropriate, and remove uncited questioned content if no sources are found in 60 days. --GRuban (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

  • Restore (as initiator) per the reasons given here (in short: notability is easy to assert and anyway this is not AfD; none of the WP:GAMECRUFT points really apply; technical details should be made more understandable and not simply deleted). LjL (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore. While the article undoubtly has several issues, some content was removed where simple cleanup would be more useful than deleting it. Maths314 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm curious as to what specific sections should be restored. I mean as long we're not talking about [8]. Shouldn't need explain the problems with that one. Eik Corell (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore I don't really see any reason that such an extensive removal of material was required. Also it doesn't really seem like WP:GAMECRUFT applies to the material removed. The article, including the content removed, seemed focused on the game not on fictional elements within the game or non-encyclopedic content like how-to's or strategy guides. Frankly, such a wholesale removal of material kind of seems like vandalism. Klaun (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore - I don't see the reason why the content was deleted. It couldn't been easily fixed with a few simple clean-up edits. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment At first glance, I agreed with the Restore comments, but I noticed that much of the deleted material seems completely unsourced. It reads very much like paraphrasing from an article (some reads a little like Original Research), so sourcing becomes really important. It is hard to say that any of this material should be kept without sourcing or references. Even if I voted to Restore, I would insist that the material find sources in 60 days or be removed. StarHOG (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore with [citation needed] tags whenever appropriate, and Remove if no sources are found in a reasonable time. WarKosign 11:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore with [citation needed] tags wherever appropriate and add sources wherever reasonably practicable. There is an unhealthy and unconstructive indoor sport of indulging a culture of veto, in which editors with nothing to contribute remove substantial material, sometimes large blocks of material, that instead they could have amended, or that did not require citations or repeated citations at all. That may be a tempting tactic for wikilawyers and warriors, but it is disruptive editing all the same. This is not to connive at sloppy authoring or editing, but there are worse things than missing a citation or a comma. JonRichfield (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Restore, agree with JonRichfield: deleting this content is not improving the article. Adding citations or CN tags may have been an improvement. Really most of the sourcing this article needs can be handled by citing the source code right? That is not always the most helpful but it is a valid response to CN tags. Some of the individual removals may be justified but this large-scale reduction looks like slaughter to me. Bad info needs removal, good info that is unsourced needs tagged at most, not deleted. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.