Board index FlightGear Development New features

Feature Poll

Discussion and requests for new features. Please note that FlightGear developers are volunteers and may or may not be able to consider these requests.

What would you want to see most of all in the next flight gear major release? You got 3 votes!

More Aircrafts
Improved Aircrafts
Better Scenery (better textures)
More Accurate Scenery
Better Sky
Better Sea
Improved Physics
Better Sound
Crash And Other 3D Effects
Improved Performance (frame rate)
More 3D AI Models (cars on the roads and trains on the railways)
Better GUI
Improved fgrun Tool (easier to use)
More 3D Buildings And Objects
Space Flight Support
Total votes : 252

Re: Feature Poll

Postby Gijs » Sun Jun 20, 2010 7:00 pm

Toanphuc wrote:Have anyone think about using some technology in Orbiter engine?

The thing is that Orbiter is released under a different (more strict) license than FlightGear. Which means that we cannot just use parts of it in FlightGear. Read more about FlightGear's license at our wiki: ... ic_License
Airports: EHAM, EHLE, KSFO
Aircraft: 747-400
User avatar
Posts: 9375
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Delft, the Netherlands
Callsign: PH-GYS
Version: Git
OS: Windows 10

Re: Feature Poll

Postby hvengel » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:59 pm

stuart wrote:(This is going slightly off topic, but in response to Crashpilot I thought it worth responding to point out the ways in which people can contribute.)


Submitting bug reports accurately is a good example. You can do so by using the FG Bug Tracker ( This is new, but if used sensibly, a very good tool to help us Devs.

Crashpilot wrote:Why should I have to contribute C++ code to state that I think Flightgear wastes major potential by minor mistakes?

You can contribute in many ways without writing code. For example, placing objects in the scenery with the UFO and submitting them to the Scenery Objects DB is pretty straightforward and takes very little time. Even an hour spent doing this would make a difference.


Crashpilot wrote:For example, having ~300 Aircrafts to download might look impressive in the first place, but causes more harm than benefits if the vast majority of them are unfinished and/or orphaned. The thing is, the jewels hide in the crowd. People will download some fancy looking Crafts with very high expectations, and will become disappointed by it: "Not yet done". After some tries they will think "what a crappy sim" and leave. Small issue, big impact. There are other examples, like Scenery.

... and yet everyone seems intent on creating new aircraft rather than improving existing ones?

One way you could easily contribute would be to submit patches to CVS setting the "status" flag on each aircraft accurately. Yes, it'll require learning a bit about CVS, and XML, but that would be a fine contribution. You'd have to decide on appropriate criteria for the status flags, but that isn't impossible.

Crashpilot wrote:Flightgear do lack of marketing, release management and distribution. Not important you say? Well, I think this is where some greedy people kick in and take advantage of this by offering an actual distribution - for sale!

Release management actually works pretty well. Certainly the timescales for a release have improved significantly over the last couple of years. You are absolutely correct that marketing is a significant issue, and has caused some real headaches. Unfortunately most of the current contributors are too busy making improvements to the simulator to spend the time on marketing. This is an area where new people could contribute successfully.

Another simple way to contribute would be to write an appropriate review for one of the major Flight Sim websites. Even writing some articles for the FG Newsletter would help.

In fact a quick search of the wiki came up with this page:, which lists lots of ways to contribute to the simulator.


As Stuart points out there are lots of non-technical things that need to be done and one of these is marketing but there are many others (writing documentation for example). Most open source projects in fact are short handed for these non-technical tasks and can definitely use more people with these skills. FG is no exception. In addition my experience with open source projects is that users often berate the developers for not doing these non-technical tasks. But would you rather have skilled programmers doing programming or marketing (or some other non-programming tasks)? The real solution is for those users who have those skills to step up and help the project.

When it comes to improving aircraft the best thing you can do is to just do it. For A long time I was disappointed with the state of the P-51D. It had a lot going for it but it was also missing lots of features and the FDM definitely needed work. About 6 months ago I decided to do something about it and started working on improving the P-51D. Since I am a programmer and not a 3D modeler or FDM expert the learning curve was steep but it was the same basic learning curve that any user would have to go through if they had not done this type of thing before. I now have a much enhanced P-51D that I have asked be merged into GIT (CVS replacement) so hopefully it will be released with V2.1. The point being that if you don't like something about how FlightGear, or any open source project for that matter, is working you are the solution - roll up your sleeves and fix the problem. Also now that FlightGear has moved from CVS to GIT it should be easier for users to contribute changes to the existing aircraft fleet since GIT is designed to enhance collaboration. If you don't know how to get started just ask here or on the developer lists and you will get lots of help.

Posts: 1127
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 4:35 am
Location: Minden Nevada


Return to New features

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests