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

On 5/27/2026 7:58 AM, Willie Fleming wrote:
>
> I'll say it again, unless you make it a LOT easier for people to 
> contribute, inevitably the number and quality of the contributions 
> will fall away as the old purists die off.
>
> That does NOT mean of course that every PR should be accepted, but 
> they should ALL be actively welcomed and supportive constructive 
> advice given to those whose PRs are not up to scratch.

We are back to blanket, generalized statements, suggesting "the project" 
is not already doing this. It is, and I will submit, now we have done a 
180 and we want more and easier contribution being accepted by the 
project. What about the quality control issue that started this? I 
thought "the project" needed to restrict contributions?

So which is it?

On 5/27/2026 6:27 AM, Willie Fleming wrote:
> However I am back in the game and may consider humbly contributing if 
> you think I am worthy.
> Though the dismissive comments suggest the attitude problem extends 
> wider than thee Grumpy Ploughboy. Correct they do NOT prevent me from 
> contributing. OTOH they do eff-all to encourage me or anyone else 
> unfortunate enough to witmess the arrogance and petulance of some.

 >"if you think I am worthy"

That is not how this works, contribute, if the contribution is worthy, 
it will be accepted. Apparently, by some peoples standards, it gets 
accepted even when not worthy. IE: 600+ aircraft.


On 5/27/2026 4:54 AM, Willie Fleming wrote:
> Best of luck trying to address the excellent points yuo made the other 
> day. Attitudes such as those expressed by Midnight Ploughboy simply 
> reinforce your position.
> Its a volunteer project and Im not volunteering to put up with those 
> attitudes to try make the place a little more welcomi g and user 
> friendly. I wish you luck but you are dealing with too many hidebound 
> grumpy old guys who are enjoying their own little circle jerk.
> Shame cos its a really good simulator crippled by crap documentation 
> and crappier attitudes.

 >"hidebound grumpy old guys who are enjoying their own little circle jerk"

Who has the attitude?

Yet people that work on this project continue to discuss with you why 
some things are the way they are. They continue to offer suggestions as 
to how to effect change. If you are looking for a project that doesn't 
involve diversity of opinion, then this is not ever going to work.


On 5/27/2026 7:02 AM, David Hudach wrote:
> But the turnoff is the mere suggestion that unless you can do this, 
> your ideas are not welcome, no matter how much "non-commit" effort 
> you've put in, or how much airplane or other knowledge you have. 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but not once in this or any discussion have I 
> heard a "real" contributor say, "that's a great idea, let's work 
> together to code it up." I've seen plenty of "here's where and how YOU 
> can commit it." But otherwise my overall take is that the atmosphere 
> for input is less than welcoming unless you've passed the "commit" test.

I did, I told you exactly how to do it. Make the change to the QT 
launcher to filter out 90% of the aircraft, by default, submit it with 
the explanation as to why it should be done this way, and see if it is 
adopted. In the time it has taken to post all this communication, you 
could have easily accomplished that task. That is what James is talking 
about. That is what would be effective. That is what would buy you some 
credibility. That is proof you are invested in the project and not just 
talking points.


On 5/27/2026 6:21 AM, David Hudach wrote:
> Got it. You are in effect saying that if QA isn't coupled to commits 
> then QA can't be taken seriously, isn't welcome. You may not be saying 
> it directly, but that is the message you are sending. You are saying, 
> if you haven't "done anything" or won't make commits, then your ideas 
> aren't welcome. The message is : there is only one type of contributor 
> to FG.

You're commingling X and Y. Your suggested QA issues have be met with 
opposing opinions, that all. Submitting a merge request with the changes 
your QA suggests is a level up from that and is demonstrating your 
serious and willing to help make these changes. James is busy working on 
other things important to his truths about the project, as are others.


On 5/27/2026 8:25 AM, Willie Fleming wrote:
> Yes the problem is in just HOW you do that and the subsequent 
> communications.

There is no boss, dedicated quality control or customer support group. 
There is only community members of all types and opinion. They are going 
to communicate the way they communicate.


My point, opinions, about general good practices, are being made as if 
they are the negative truths of this project as it stands today. They 
aren't truths, they are opinions. You can't argue against them because 
they are general good practice for any project of this kind. There 
really isn't much more to say.

About the advertising. The project tries to promote new features all the 
time. Many community members do the same, including myself. Just because 
someone doesn't see them or sees something from the past that we cant 
control, doesn't mean that there is no effort to advertise the best of 
the project. That to is something that requires time and commitment, not 
talk.



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