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

Sorry Wayne, its attitudes like you have just expressed that will ensure
this project will continue to shrink and the forums become even more of a
bubble.
Yours is a recipe for long slow decline .and ever more inward thinking.
I was enthused on first meeting FGand the excitement as the first "scenery"
was introduced.  I remeber the first actual airstrip modelled - somewhere
in the Rockies was it? Just a strip of grey on a sea of green with a
perfectly blue sky. But it wasnt a perfectly flat strip, you could see that
it matched a presumeablly real terrain profile. And I guessed thi was
actual realism, not a crude rendering of the Chicago shoreline.
And we had fun trying to fly the Navion off of it. Sometimes I even landed
it back again....  I had to take others word for it that this was how a
real Navion flew.  At this point I had maybe 6 hours in a C152 so I would
have believed anything. Jst as well, there was a Navion and an X-15 and
that was ot for me - or pretty much anyone else IIRC. But it WAS what we
had data for...
A lot of hard work was done by a lot of people since then. But I no longer
find the forums a particularly welcoming place anymore. Maybe thats my
fault bt Im not so sure I am alone in this thinking.
So its sad to see a great project fall apart with pointless petty bickering
about what is the "spirit " of the project instead of trying to be as
welcoming and accomodating to the newbies as was once the case
I m NOT asking to give up on the fundamentals - its a simulator rather than
a game.....   Instead we get" Its a simulator, you will obey and it is NOT
a game".  God forbid anyone should actually enjoy themselves at this.

Maybe thats not whatyou meant but your last post certainly gives that
impression.   And that's sad....

On Mon, 25 May 2026 at 20:52, 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
>


-- 
Regards
Willie Fleming

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