To answer some inquiries/points brought up(and sorry for the delay, was feeling under the weather this week so I didn't check back here much:
Az did a pretty solid job of touching on some of your points, but you had some following inquries. For the player physics bit, for example, the main question would be what you feel actually needs improving to the physics model. As-is, the player physics is robust and reliable, so unless there's a main driving reason for an overhaul to it, it is, as Az noted, not a priority. Obviously expanding what it can do is something we're always game for though.
Same for the input manager change request. I do want to have an actual 'keybinds designer/editor' to make it easier to set all that stuff up in the near future, but I'm not aware of any standing issues with the keybind behavior on the backend that'd necessitate a total overhaul/replacement right now.
Regarding the project management and @ Bishop
touched on it as well, my last entry specifically touches on the work going into the new Torque Manager.
The initial implementation will be largely utility focused, but even at that level, I want it to be a platform you can manage engine builds, projects, assets and the like, as well as a hub to easily jump to documentation or examples. I did take some notes from Godot's launcher, as well as Unity, UE4 and Cryengine, as well as the original T3D project manager. So I concur that having a manager/launcher is definitely useful, especially for new people just getting on board to try the engine out, which is why that's definitely already a thing being worked on.
I'm looking forward to having the first build of it out in possibly a week, so if you guys give it a whirl and provide feedback on it, that'll definitely help a lot.
Regarding the 'not going for AAA graphics', let me clarify. Graphics are fundamentally an important component of game development, naturally. I want T3D's renderer to be able to put out whatever level of graphics the developer needs to achieve their vision, which is part of why I'm looking forward to down the line when we can get The Forge working for the graphics backend which will open a lot of options.
That said, the practical reality is as a few others in here noted. The vast majority of indie developers(and if we're being honest, a lot of AAA developers) put out assets and art content well below your 'Battlefield X Main character cinematic model' in terms of fidelity and quality. Establishing the most widely used/common fidelity level as the baseline of support lets us better target what people are actually going to need and use, avoiding a lot of wasted manpower and R&D into obscure render features that no one uses.
It means fewer bulletpoints to put on the website, but it also means that what people DO have to work with is going to be solid and get them what they need in the majority of cases.
And especially with 4.0, with PBR and a pretty solid IBL model, we're definitely at the point where you can put some pretty good fidelity art in and get good results out. Mainly it's a matter of getting a sizeable content library PBR-ified for people to test with and screenshots/videos of to actually understand 'oh hey, this actually does look pretty good'.