I think you are being unnecessarily confrontational: you may want to re-read the last paragraph in my previous reply in this thread in order to try to understand the possible reasoning behind NON-developers pointing out core-development related issues they may perceive as critical.

Hi,>I think you are being unnecessarily confrontational: you may>want to re-read the last paragraph in my previous reply in>this thread in order to try to understand the possible>reasoning behind NON-developers pointing out core-development>related issues they may perceive as critical."Hardraade" is not simply a non-developer. He's monitoring the -devel mailing list for a long time and participates in discussions that take place there.He _knows_ - or at least he _should_ know - about the developer manpower of this project. Now instead of honouring that so few developers with so little time yet managed to get such a complex thing as a flight simulator into its current, pretty much working shape (yes, I know, there are still many rough edges and room for improvement), he's blaiming ignorance of developers or the lack of management for the current state of the FlightGear code.I find such a habit really disgusting. Cheers,Martin.

Given your strong choice of words, you seem to be very passionate about FlightGear, however I think you failed to understand that other people may feel equally (or possibly even more) passionate about FlightGear- but may express their passion differently (i.e. by contributing base package contents such as aircraft), but maybe occassionally also with less patience.The latter in particular is a common issue when dealing with younger people in general, and important to keep in mind because this in itself doesn't necessarily invalidate their arguments in general.While I am not sure of your position or role in the project, most of the users here frequenting these forums do know Hardraade who's been providing support to many users using this forum for quite some time.Likewise, many of us are familiar with many of Hardraade's contributions to the FlightGear project, simply because they can be easily found in the base package. In particular he's apparently contributed to pretty much most Airbus related aircraft models, in fact he seems to have contributed to lots of stuff in the base package.So, while he is obviously not a core developer, I think he should be entitled to an opinion, if not for the fact that he's regularly providing support to fellow FlightGear users having problems getting FlightGear to work for them, then certainly for his track record of numerous FlightGear contributions and for being a regular long-term contributor.If you checked out the more recent postings in this thread, you will have noticed that I did also mention some controversial points in my reply. Apparently unlike you however, I really feel it should be our upmost priority to keep this whole discussion "clean", there's no point in blaming anybody personally, name calling or making allegations (no matter if false or true), simply because that's not going to be constructive or helpful in the first place. Neither for the sake of this discussion, nor for the sake of the project as a whole.So, I think it is very important to keep this dialog as unemotional as possible.Otherwise, we would indeed risk to do the project a disservice-simply because this community may lose its appeal for newcomers. In fact, by telling even a long-term contributor that you are "disgusted" by his posting is certainly also a viable way to do the project a possible disservice-i.e. by offending the corresponding person so that he/she may no longer be interested in being a part of the community.There's really no point in concentrating on differences. The only way to make progress is to see the commonalities (which in this case can probably be described as a shared passion for FlightGear) and use these as a foundation for a constructive exchange.So, while I do entirely agree with you that it's absolutely amazing how FlightGear has evolved overall, and also how it evolved very recently in particular (i.e. the migration to OSG), I think that you really need to take into account the perspective of people/USERS providing feedback BEFORE indicating -even if subtley- that they may put harm to the project (intentionally or not) by pointing out subjectively perceived problems.So, personally I think that it is primarily important to identify the underlying issue of this whole debate in order to possibly find a solution to the problem.

>So, personally I think that it is primarily important to>identify the underlying issue of this whole debate in order to>possibly find a solution to the problem.That is, to ask the question "WHY an increasing number of FlightGear users is apparently getting more and more frustrated about the subjectively perceived lack of progress in FlightGear development as a whole?"And quite frankly, personally I think it's because of FlightGear's very success in the first place:It is only since just very recently that the development progress made in FlightGear has started to attract an increasing number of pure users, that is people with no-specific background in development, programming or computers in general, NONE whatsoever. So, while the average regular FlightGear user until very recently was usually in fact someone with some sort of computer science, engineering or otherwise pretty technical background, you are currently about to watch more and more people getting interested in the project that do not have any such background whatsoever.And that's a new situation!People without any sort of technical background want to use FlightGear as a PLATFORM for their own projects and efforts.Thus, FlightGear has now finally reached a point where it has evolved into something that no longer merely attracts a very special breed of people (namely: professional users, developers and geeks/power users-usually with a Unix/Linux background), but rather pretty much anybody with some sort of interest in flight simulation or aviation in general and a good portion of dedication. In fact, this is reflected by the high quality and -at least for FlightGear- unusually high fidelity of contributions you can now watch being made to the base package (i.e. think about aircraft such as b1900d or the Seneca II).So, while many areas in FlightGear have so far been mainly limited by a lack of contributors (manpower!) who would like to develop CONTENTS for FlightGear (i.e. aircraft, scenery, avionics etc), we are now experiencing a phase where more and more pure content developers are jumping on board, who are apparently starting to feel limited by the (lack of) development done in the core code base, development required to enable new content developers to make new interesting contributions.While it is entirely true that this is a situation that may eventually frustrate all parties involved, it is also very important to keep in mind how this situation developed in the first place and that it is certainly not unique (MSFS went pretty much through the same when people wanted to get involved but didn't know how to): it's simply the momentum and user community that FlightGear has attracted meanwhile.A community of users that cannot wait to get involved.So, the cause for what you are seeing now, is in fact simply evidence for FlightGear's success, it's a chance but also a tough challenge for the management of the project.Indeed, if you check out some archived mailing list discussions, you'll find that it has always been considered a declared goal to implement infrastructures required to finally attract such content developers, so that non-developers could concentrate on contributing contents while core developers could concentrate on doing core development: basically, FlightGear has a long-standing history of encouraging framework-centric development, where the emphasis is not to implement individual features but rather the foundation required to enable non-developers to implement individual features.Thus, this situation is mainly caused by non-developers joining the project at a much faster pace than the FlightGear project (and its current development model) can currently accomodate, and hence also much faster than new requests can be implemented to keep new contributors interested.And this is of course a problem, it will inevitably cause some stress (if not addressed) - in particular given, that normal users are traditionally less patient than developers or geeks/power users.

>While I am not sure of your position or role in the project,>most of the users here frequenting these forums do know>Hardraade who's been providing support to many users using>this forum for quite some time.>>Likewise, many of us are familiar with many of Hardraade's>contributions to the FlightGear project, simply because they>can be easily found in the base package.I don't intend to counterveil between different supporters' effort/contributions, I'll leave this up to you if you really think it is worth digging into this. But this is absolutely not the point I'm referring to.No matter how much someone has contributed to the project, be it by providing continuous support on this forum, by adding aircraft models to the FlightGear hangar, whatever this might be. All this does not justify to call the developers a crowd of fools!I agree with you that taking such discussions to an open list is not the ideal way to handle such an issue, but it's still better that leaving such bolt disrespect uncommented. This is exactly what I've done in my response to Ampere and I really have no idea why you are still defending his attitude - this definitely matches your own criteria as a disservice to the project,Martin.

>He _knows_ - or at least he _should_ know - about the>developer manpower of this project. Now instead of honouring>that so few developers with so little time yet managed to get>such a complex thing as a flight simulator into its current,>pretty much working shape (yes, I know, there are still many>rough edges and room for improvement), he's blaiming ignorance>of developers or the lack of management for the current state>of the FlightGear code.Ignorance? No. Arrogance? Yes! With a comment like this:>I find such a habit really disgusting. Cheers,What's more need to be said?>No matter how much someone has contributed to the project, be>it by providing continuous support on this forum, by adding>aircraft models to the FlightGear hangar, whatever this might>be. All this does not justify to call the developers a crowd>of fools!Really, care to highlight the exact sentence where I have called the developers "a crowd of fools"?It is precisely altitudes like that displayed in your posts that brought this thread into existance in the first place. I'm glad I am not the only one who notices that.

By the way, incase you haven't noticed yet, I have made no reference regarding the speed of development of FlightGear.Do read carefully next time before spreading false allegations.