As we begin to get comments, I think we may be surprised at how rapidly our tutorials tend to move relative to the general public of SEM'ers. We run the risk of turning people off before they even begin.
The tutorial currently starts with far too much assumed knowledge. I think we will see that as we begin to hear comments from our beta testers. If we don't change our style from the current Mx (high level, lots of features, but no concessions for beginners), there is not much point in having written OpenMx. We will continue to appeal to a niche audience, primarily BG researchers who are already willing to learn Mx.
The main complaint I hear about Mx, and I hear this alot: "It must be a great program, but it's too hard for someone like me." I hear this from PhDs who are successfully running and publishing SEM. I even have heard it from people who teach SEM. I think we need to remember that on a day-to-day basis we operate in a rarified atmosphere. We could increase the user base of OpenMx a great deal by keeping its introductory tutorials simple enough that people who will may never hear of a Cholesky decomposition in their entire research career will not think "This is just like Mx, it's too hard for me".