When was permission given to you to inhibit evolution, to dicusse and formulate change ?
See, that's why & where you keep failing all the time: you are constantly alienating people interested in your ideas, interested in contributing - people who are actually able to turn your ideas into working features. In the last two years I have met roughly ~20-30 new contributors who managed to get me interested and involved in their projects, without alienating me. And I know this applies to others like Thorsten for example. That's the whole secret - and we tried to cover it in the article that you refuse to read
WE will never have a conversation whilst your first response is to tell all and sundry that I don't understand anything.
I don't care as much about having conversations as implementing new features.
And others have told you before, our understanding about certain things is obviously relevant - your knowledge about FDM development, and JSBSim, is much more complete than mine obviously, and you have done a tremendous job with your aircraft/FDM development - so I am going to listen to what you have to say - but whenever you start talking about things like coding (and apparently also physics), it is obvious to other contributors that you don't know what you're talking about, while that is not such a problem, it starts becoming a problem, once you are not even interested in honoring the feedback you are given. That's exactly what I meant with being "reluctant" and "resistant".
I understand that having loads of emails and pm's in the backgrounds, that creating little cliche groups has a negative effect on stimulus.
I don't know, the devel list and forum are fairly public platforms, and so is the wiki - still, there's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes obviously. In fact, compared to the forum, the devel list would seem basically "inactive" these days otherwise. And yeah, there is a lot of talking going on that we're not aware of, myself included. I don't believe that this is going to be successful, which is why I am pretty "religious" about using the wiki, and about encouraging others to get involved in the wiki. There's some very specific examples (as in actual FEATURES) in FG, that materialized through the wiki, but also through behind-the-scenes exchanges.
Over the last few years I've personal seen you announce that conversations should stop, lock threads and as in this one announce yourself to the original poster in a very 'know it all' manner.
you are free to have whatever conversation that you deem necessary, until someone points out your language of course.
What I say is not at all authoritative, as I've told you countless of times. But you even responding to me means that there are not many others taking even the slightest interest in what you're saying, probably because of the way you're communicating. Like someone recently pointed out to me privately: the more senior people don't even bother to listen to certain people, not just you, but also others.
It's happened to most of us, and even happens to the most senior core developers once in a while. Manpower is our primary bottleneck, it's not a shortage of good ideas (or criticism for that matter)
and that's the first that that should have been done 15 years ago and kept as a live document so as people have an idea of where FG is going and where they can join in.
According to what I've seen on the T4T forums, and accoridng to what I've been told by some T4T regulars, including yourself, you are not exactly a "role model" when it comes to project management.
You may complain all day long about the shortcomings of FlightGear, the project, the developers, the maintainers and its community - but your complaints are going to have ZERO effect, unless you try to be the change you want to see. Look at some more senior posters around here, who've made fairly similar postings in their early days (like myself) - we are trying to do something about it. It's not perfect, but it seems to work to varying degrees.
You refuse to get involved in the wiki, or even just read up on how the project works, and how to CAUSE the changes you want to see, based on ACTUAL observations, not some consensus - and to any sane person following your postings, it is obvious that you are constantly contradicting yourself, even completely apart from the technical/coding side of things.
Did it ever occur to you, that contributing to the wiki would allow you to shape the project the way you want ? Much more so than making a few dozen critical postings each week ... Be the change you want to see, embrace the void and try to fill it, and working within the limitations of how the project works - that's how some of the most accomplished contributors have managed to shape FlightGear quite significantly, despite strong opposition and lack of support from more senior contributors. Words don't matter as much as actions ... signal/noise, you know. All those wiki articles are there to save people like you some time - we've been trying to write articles in a "lessons learnt" fashion, articles that we would have hoped to have available when we were newcomers criticizing the project - we didn't have any of those. But hey, we figured we could be the change we wanted to see - that's really the key here. Others may not agree with us always, but that's not the point - we are at least doing SOMETHING, until someone steps up and replaces our efforts, which is when we'll be glad to adopt a "placeholder mentality" and hand-over our "stubs"
And I was just pointing out that it was not a good example of what you were getting at.
Agreed, actually it's an extremely good example in my opinion, and I was going to add it to the "Implementing new features for FlightGear" article, if that's okay ?