by Hooray » Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:52 pm
Depending on the audience, it's not all that bad - obviously people with a long-term background contributing to FlightGear have a very different perspective, but they are also unlikely to benefit from a review.
A typical review will target MSFS/XP end-users, and sometimes real/former pilots.
So, if you are primarily interested in flight simulation as a hobby or to use a flight simulator to become a pilot, maintain proficiency or simply remember old times, FlightGear is unlikely to be particularly appealing for a plethora of reasons.
I would consider myself pretty familiar with FlightGear, and I have flown real aircraft (small ones) in the past, but if I wanted to obtain a rating or maintain proficiency, I honestly would not recommend to use FlightGear for that (unless the person in question is already someone with a background in software engineering or a someone with a tinkerer's mindset)- Personally, I'd rather go with X-Plane or purchase a commercial product like something from ELITE, Jeppesen or oddsoft (for IFR).
Obviously, it depends on the kind of flying you're interested in, i.e. FlightGear MAY suffice for people interested in experimental, ultralight aircraft or gliders/TMG - and maybe to some extent even basic GA (VFR), especially because some aircraft are well-developed (i.e. the c172p) - but sooner or later, FlightGear's limitations are becoming rather obvious - and it's much easier to pay 50-100 products to get a polished product that is suitable to be used for something like maintaining an IFR-ME rating.
In other words, no offense to FlightGear or the people involved in contributing to it, but whenever someone external to the project is reviewing FlightGear, it's obviously going to be colored by their background/interests - and the typical flight sim enthusiasts simply doesn't have a master's degree in CS, maths or physics - many end-users willing to pay for a product like MFSF or XP are likely to have once toyed with the idea of becoming commercial pilots, or even ATPs - they don't want a toolbox with a plethora of features, they want something polished that works out of the box - something that doesn't need to be compiled/customized to even just work.
Many of these people want "adventures & missions", i.e. they're interested in "gaming" aspects of a flight simulator, and the more serious ones actually want vATC integration, flight plans, systems modeling, failures and the whole shebang
Thus, it simply isn't reasonable to "compete" with such products, nor is it feasible for FlightGear to compete for such end-users, it's going to be more pain than gain - the introduction of the multiplayer system into FlightGear is a long-standing testimony to that.
It's worth keeping this in mind whenever long-term contributors are dissecting a FlightGear review, just because someone is looking at FlightGear without a background in contributing for 10+ years. Most flight sim users have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in the development/maintenance of such a work-in-progress, they'd rather part with 50-100 bucks every couple of years, and be done with it. Which should be acceptable to the opposite camp of people, i.e. those who don't mind spending hundreds of hours contributing to FlightGear over the course of many years.
Obviously, with developments like graphical front-ends, GUI launchers, a working release cycle (binaries which people don't have to compile themselves) and the multiplayer system, the learning curve is getting lower and lower for newcomers, so that more and more people with a MFSS/XP background may check out FlightGear sooner or later, some of whom may even roll up their sleeves and do a review - nevertheless, we're deluding ourselves by providing a UI launcher, a translated UI or even the equivalent of a "LTS" version: FlightGear as a project simply cannot compete with the likes of MSFS/XP, and it shouldn't even be trying to for a plethora of reasons - whenever the barrier to entry is lowered, newcomers will inevitably show up and point out the "deficiencies" they see given their backgrounds - a polished look and feel (on the surface) will just add to the confusion.