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

>  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.

On flightgear.org there is a Donate page. Why is that there?

Again and again I've said perfection isn't the goal. And naming ALL of the
great things about FG doesn't mean that issues that impact user experience
shouldn't be addressed.

>   It's not a commercial product that needs to live up to some standard.

Not even its own I guess.

Dave

On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 3:53 PM Wayne Bragg <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>

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