Maybe we should put more emphasis on what FlightGear is and what it is not in its advertisements. We need to be more clear about its capabilities also about where it is lacking. A way to let potential new users know what it is they're getting into before they delete their FSX and climb on board
I don't think we widely advertize that way. In fact, I don't think we advertize much at all. And I don't know any user who deleted FSX to continue with FG.
Much of what is actually happening out there is rigged contests (a bit like V12 was doing of late) - take your 500$ paid add-on setup, make a screenshot of that, make a screenshot of FG with all graphical goodies disabled, make a post reassuring yourself how well these 500$ were spent.
What I post on Flightsim.com or on the FG page are simply reports - that is what we've implemented, that is what it can do. I don't believe anyone has ever advertized ease of access or things working out of the box.
***
The other thing is - you need to give some piece of software a chance. I remember my first Linux machine when Gnome 3 was introduced - I couldn't find a thing, I couldn't get my xterm like I was used to, I was so very annoyed at that crappy software.
I decided to give it a chance - two weeks later it was okay, these days I firmly believe Gnome3 is the most brilliant desktop concept I've ever used - I find myself annoyed sitting in front of a Windows desktop that it is so unresponsive and requires me to use menus for every action.
Likewise, when I tried the FSX demo, of course the whole concept of view switching felt wrong, my reflexes how to operate this didn't work, I had no clue how to disable the 3d view,... nothing worked out of the box. But it would not be fair to pin that on FSX - it was just me who had the wrong use habits through long years of FG. I'm fairly sure in time I might have found a way to disable the 3d thing and configure keys...
(By the way, talking to FSX users, it seems to be a myth that things generally work out of the box - at FSWeekend, I was treated to long stories how addons are not compatible, some require a certain patch level, others a different one, sometimes they have to be installed in a certain order, if you acquire a new addon, it means you might have to install everything from scratch because that order is violated,... usually they were quite ready to admit that the FG way of merging everything into mainline is a lot better).
***
So in the end, what I'd like to achieve with what 'PR' we do is to change the pre-conceived notion that FG is necessarily looking bad. Once that is out of the way, people may or may not get curious. They may try FG. Some will find that its OpenSource style does not meet their expectations - they prefer to be customers who get a finished product rather than members of an OpenSource community trying to tinker a bit. They'll go back to FSX. Yet a few might like the possibilities that are there and will see the chances - these are the users we'd like to attract.
I guess the mistake is to assume that it's a bad thing if users prefer FSX or XP. No - it's a good thing - we are not FSX II, we do not cater for the same type of users. It's good that there's choice what you want to have - it gives us in FG the freedom to explore what we'd like to get out of a flightsim.
We would not have a Space Shuttle that detailed if we were obliged to actually sell it to customers - most would be unhappy because it's not easy to learn how to use it, we'd get bad reviews, management would intervene. Instead, we are free to say - this is how it is, this is what we wanted to create - if you do not like it, do not use it.
This is how FG introduces itself:
The goal of the FlightGear project is to create a sophisticated and open flight simulator framework for use in research or academic environments, pilot training, as an industry engineering tool, for DIY-ers to pursue their favorite interesting flight simulation idea, and last but certainly not least as a fun, realistic, and challenging desktop flight simulator.
We are developing a sophisticated, open simulation framework that can be expanded and improved upon by anyone interested in contributing.
First research, training, industry, for tinkerers - and as afterthought also as desktop flightsim. OpenSource is mentioned prominently, the possibility to contribute is re-iterated.
What's not in there is 'easy' - it says 'realistic' and 'challenging'. What's not in there is 'easy to set up'.
I see it as preconceived expectations that are manifest to a real negative experience
Yes - that happens - see the 'giving things a chance' theme above. We don't aim to create something where the causal user feels home immediately, and we never claim to. If you're the type of user who feels this challenge of staying with it and exploring all the possibilities is interesting, you'll stay - if you value a smooth experience above anything else, you should be going elsewhere, because FG can't really deliver that.