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

How? How does this hurt the brand? Now that sales are off the table 
you're going to suggest donations? The FlightGear brand isn't trying to 
sell anything. It hopefully will never start down the path of catering 
to users in order to gain some compensation or donation. That is not 
what this project has ever been. It is offering, for free, a sandbox 
simulator, as is, for anyone that wants to use it for just about any 
reason. Why am I constantly characterizing it as a sandbox? Because, 
what other "Aircraft Simulator" allows a user to become a developer to 
develop virtually anything, that if enough people subscribe to, might be 
introduced and added to the project. I've tried to list what the project 
is capable of before, but I fail every time, because the list is just 
too long. How many of these capabilities could potentially turn off a 
"new user" because they are in various stages of development?

The project does not rely on the user who has to have everything work 
perfectly, or only good aircraft presented to them the first time they 
use it. That is silly in so many ways. I reject the premise entirely. I 
am not saying the launcher and the way aircraft are listed might not be 
improved. There really isn't any aspect of the project that couldn't be 
improved upon. I am suggesting that your characterization of this issue 
is flawed. Your implying if some free content doesn't work, it will turn 
off someone that wants to fly an aircraft that works. That this person 
won't try another one or several. That they won't ask the question, why? 
No way, I don't agree, I reject it completely. And if did happen, of 
what worth do you think this person would be to the project anyway, if 
they just assume at first glance that of what your stating? I don't want 
to see the changes your suggesting, I think it would actually harm the 
project, not help it. You can theorize until your blue in the face and 
it won't change what this project is and has to offer. You can try to 
suggest I don't care because I say "who cares", my comments are a poor 
attempt to communicate that your entire argument is not valid, that we 
are not loosing anyone of worth to the project if we don't do X. It's 
not a commercial product that needs to live up to some standard. It is a 
free offering made up of like minded enthusiast who voluntarily work on 
areas they like and even sometimes on areas they don't.  I do remember 
some of my first impressions and they may actually line up with 
your characterization to some extent. But after being a part of the 
community for a length of time, I began to understand, my impressions 
were wrong. So now I try to educate people what this project is all 
about at the first opportunity possible. What I won't do is agree to a 
suggestion to change something I think works well, once understood. I 
won't promote or agree to something that I think will do more harm to 
someone that actually contributes than it will help someone that doesn't 
understand what the project is about.

On 5/25/2026 6:46 AM, David Hudach wrote:
> And I will say that much of this discussion relates to an experienced 
> FG user. I don't think that is the origin of this post. It has to do 
> with the image of FG with a new user and the impact it has on new 
> users when an aircraft is broken. As an experienced user it's easy to 
> say, "write the author" or refine your search criteria and so forth. 
> But to a new user when something is broken, that user will more than 
> likely associate it with the app itself. And that's what ends up 
> hurting the name, the brand.


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