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

Yep, it could be any one or all of those things you mention. But if you ask
me it's the hidden and blatant messages and all around attitude that make
this entire conversation most alarming for me. The tone of cliqueness is
not, to me, imagined.

Going back to the original post, I think it was to raise attention to
something that seemed important and he felt he should mention. Does someone
necessarily need to have a solution to bring up an issue? The issue itself
was meant to generate discussion on its merits with the hope of seeking
solutions. And much of it centered around the image of FG to new users and
you don't need me to point out how some in this forum feel about new users,
how many in this forum feel about someone raising an issue without having
the credibility of code commits to back it.

And it's true, there were many ideas thrown out about ratings and potential
improvements. But in the end, quite honestly, it's the general tone of "who
in the hell do you think you are coming in here without commits and a proof
of concept coded up to address the problem."

I have no suggestions now what should happen. I think the tone has spoken
for itself. Ask the original poster what should happen.

Dave



On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 6:15 PM Julian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 May 2026 07:21:17 -0400
> David Hudach <[email protected]> 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.
>
> It seems to me that the problem here is not that FG people are simply
> rejecting all the ideas of people who cannot (yet) contribute directly.
>
> Instead the problem seems to be that no developer has found the
> suggestions on this thread compelling enough to be worth spending their
> time on. [However note that several developers have contributed
> detailed explanations of their thoughts to this thread.]
>
> And it looks like the proposers of the suggestion are unable to develop
> the suggestion into actual changes to FG themselves.
>
> So what do you suggest should happen now?
>
>
> - Jules
>
>
> >
> > I will still use FG because I've tried X and MS and they suck. FG is by
> far
> > the best. But at least now I know that no matter what I discover or
> > improvements I might have, unless I know how to code them, my comments
> are
> > not welcome. The message is there is only one level/type of contributor.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 7:12 AM James Turner <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 27 May 2026, at 11:31, David Hudach <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >  The FG project should be able to take critique and criticism from
> > > testing and analysis on all levels and "talking about stuff" should
> result
> > > in some kinds of resolutions or maybe even consensus or at least the
> notion
> > > that it's a serious topic.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, experience has shown that we can (sometimes) build a consensus
> here,
> > > but that achieves … not a whole lot. ‘Doing stuff’ (commits / testing)
> is
> > > worth 50x or 100x more than ‘talking about stuff’, even if it’s a
> > > conversation that leads to a consensus. Because in the end, it’s
> commits
> > > that improve the user experience when they download something.
> > >
> > > And to be blunt: talking is taken a lot more seriously when it comes
> from
> > > someone who has previously *done stuff* (commits again). In the
> original
> > > example of aircraft quality, if you or SP-NTX had spent the last six
> months
> > > filling the GitLab tracker with fixes / patches to improve the ratings
> or
> > > fix low-hanging bugs in:
> > >
> > > https://gitlab.com/flightgear/aircraft-bugs
> > >
> > > … then I would take your comments many times more seriously than I do
> at
> > > present. Other people have fixed plenty bugs in that time - Rhys
> > > especially, Gijs and many others as well. Each of those commits has
> made an
> > > immediate improvement to the end-user experience of people running
> > > FlightGear.
> > >
> > > If you care about a topic, demonstrating a commitment to doing stuff
> *as
> > > well* as talking about stuff, is what matters. Because otherwise we
> will
> > > talk our way to a conclusion, but nothing will get done. If, say, you
> think
> > > the ratings UI needs to change: you’re the one who needs to change the
> UI,
> > > probably. You don’t need to build a consensus here *first*: made a PoC,
> > > submit it, and then you and I and whoever else cares can debate the
> > > technical / UX merits of it, with something concrete. Same for
> changing the
> > > default ratings or anything else :)
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > James
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Flightgear-devel mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> http://op59.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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