Some of the folks posting here disagreeing with Curt are missing the whole picture actually - we do have a number of FG features/efforts that took shape despite strong opposition and fundamentally despite an initial lack of encouragement, let alone support, from the core development group - the Canvas 2D drawing system being one of the more recent additions that come to mind, but also some of Thorsten's work - namely the scripted (Nasal based) "Advanced Weather" system, that is superior to anything we have in terms of core features, but that is also favorably highlighted in various independent flight simulator reviews - in contrast to that, a number of people on the devel list have basically stated that they wouldn't want to see such features developed using a scripting language, especially a niche one like Nasal. Besides, other core developers have explicitly stated on several ocassions that they'd like to see Nasal becoming entirely optional, possibly to be replaced with something like Python, Lua or JavaScript - so, it's really not that the current bag-of-features represents any kind of mutual "consensus", there are also technical disagreements among core developers and other long-standing contributors.
Equally, in the current form the Bombable addon cannot be committed to fgdata/fgaddon, because a number of core developers are opposed to it due to its dogfighting nature - yet, flug has been maintaining his work separately, and it continues to be one of the most actively developed and -maintained addons available for FlightGear - talk about discouragement and opposition.
And then, getting back to Thorsten, we've literally seen years wasted on this forum where people were debating whether it'd make sense to implement spacecraft/spaceflight related functionality in/for FlightGear - fast forward 5+ years later, the shuttle folks have actually demonstrated, that there isn't much missing at the core level at all.
In other words, this isn't about some negative or bitter postings/people discouraging others - it's more about those few that actually don't give a damn and care so much about their idea, that it ends up growing -becoming so big that it will eventually take shape, no matter the degree and nature of opposition - and no matter what some of the old guys are telling you.
Thus, it is kinda pointless making all this specific to Thorsten - who's originally seen more criticism and opposition from some of the most senior contributors on the devel list, due to his choice of tools (namely Nasal scripting), and approaches/coding style. If Thorsten had listened to those people, we probably would not have an advanced weather system, an orbital rendering engine, the atmostpheric light scattering framework (ALS) or the shuttle in its current form.
This is just to say that Thorsten has been more on the receiving end of this than most others around here, and that I cannot see anything negative or bitter in his original response - it was certainly meant to provide good advice, and I think the same kind of advice would have worked for him - not sure though if we could have discouraged him - just look at his early exchanges with HHS on this very forum - where it seemed like he was being treated in a fairly condescending manner.
Speaking in general, it is easy for people to vent their frustration here - simply because it takes so much less time and energy than doing a little research first to check your facts, but if we (as in, the community) can immediately spot people posting without see the full context, they are the ones to harm their case.
Personally, I've found Curt's responses here rather constructive, and I would hope for this attitude to make it over to the devel list, so that this also causes a rejuvenation process in the core development group - it is really important how many of the most important key features came to be, and by whom - what type of people were involved, at what time in their lives, and then many of the folks currently "involved" may actually realize that they have already taken a backseat role in the project, maybe because their lives have suddenly changed so much - and that people with a background similar to their own (when they were most active) may actually be in a better position to become key contributors in the project, while some of the "founding fathers" could end up with a mentoring role.
It seems that Curt's attitude is also one increasingly affected by self-reflection, this can be seen in a handful of FlightGear related interviews he's given over the last couple of years, and personally I believe that this is the key to making sure that the project remains alive and kicking - without expecting 2-3 key folks to shoulder 99% of the workload.
To see for yourself, just look at the commit logs of the last couple of years and imagine what would happen if 1-2 of the most active contributors had to take a hiatus from FlightGear (for whatever reason).
Before yelling at folks like Curt, I'd suggest to read up on some of the conclusions that Curt arrived at over the years, and maybe ask yourself if you could maybe become part of the solution rather than the problem ?
https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content. ... FlightGearhttps://www.scoop.it/t/microsimulation/ ... flightgear https://www.unixmen.com/reach-for-the-o ... tis-olson/http://www.h-online.com/open/features/T ... 12243.html