The point of Orbiter

[ar81]

What he said. Sorry, but this is a pointless thread. Though interesting ITAR debate, that would have made a better topic.

If you like, you may revive the ITAR debate, which is indeed interesting, but I would not be interested about saying more than I said. I am not interested in controversy nowadays.

 

[dkluempers]

To be honest when I first downloaded Orbiter I was not really sure what to expect. It did not take long for me to understand that this was not some simple simulator that hand-held you through everything. I think I spent 3 or 4 days reading the information in the manuals for orbiter and the add-on's. Even then I realized that I had barely scratched the surface. I also knew I was in a bit in over my head.

I recall vividly my first attempt to launch into orbit and dock with the ISS. I had printed out the Orbiter manual as well a number of tutorials to help me. It took me a number of tries to successfully do it. Step by step I finally got into orbit, aligned with the ISS and then managed to get close enough to dock, thanks to all the help of the MFD's and tutorials. It took me hours to learn to fly the Delta Glider and finally dock successfully. This was followed by trips to the Moon, Mars and beyond.

I will never forget my first successful trip to Mars. As I approached using time compression I was able to watch the moons orbit it at high speed. It was amazing to see. However, I was even more amazed to realize I had learned to use the MFD's and was able to navigate there, orbit and land.

I developed a greater appreciation for the people who do this in real life. I also developed appreciation for the author of Orbiter and all those wonderful people here who developed add-ons and helped me learn fly in space. Most importantly I learned it is not as easy to fly in space as people sometimes think it is.

To me the real point of Orbiter is giving someone the chance to learn something about what it is like to fly in space - a chance to learn something new.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

no no, I don't have the knowledge or the inclination to argue the point lol.

 

[ar81]

To me the real point of Orbiter is giving someone the chance to learn something about what it is like to fly in space - a chance to learn something new.

It is about 4 years since I first played Orbiter and I am still learning, and I think I have not reached half of what could be learned from it.

 

[Urwumpe]

Orbiter is really not the best platform for wargames, for various reasons. Moreover, none of the weapons addons I've seen thus far have been very realistic at all, even compared to dedicated combat flight sims of thirteen years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Cuba!

One key problem is, that it is not easy to implement collision detection in a whole solar system.

Also the A-10 in LO:MAC is much better and extremely realistic... the only flight-sim in which the warthog stomp really works, most others use jet-liner or fighter aerodynamics on the A-10.

Bad is just that there is no flight simulator which does the Harrier with the "accuracy" of the old Harrier Jump Jet... The thrust vector maneuver in dog fighting does not work in more recent ones I played.

 

[Hielor]

One key problem is, that it is not easy to implement collision detection in a whole solar system.

Indeed. I imagine that this problem could be made easier through extensive culling of irrelevant collision meshes, but it's still way harder than the typical combat flight sim which just has a few hundred square km of area in any given level.

Also the A-10 in LO:MAC is much better and extremely realistic... the only flight-sim in which the warthog stomp really works, most others use jet-liner or fighter aerodynamics on the A-10.

Well yes, but LO:MAC is a much newer game (Nov. 1996 for A-10 Cuba!, Nov. 2003 for LO:MAC), so I would expect it to be better and more realistic.

My point was that thirteen years ago combat filght sims had already surpassed where Orbiter is now in terms of combat realism capability.

 

[Urwumpe]

My point was that thirteen years ago combat filght sims had already surpassed where Orbiter is now in terms of combat realism capability.

No wonder, if you can work in a simpler 3D space for collision detection or sensor models.

Even wrapping an octtree over the solar system would not be as effective as doing so in a "flat" battlefield. The reason why simpler games had been able to do so earlier, is just that they operated in a much simpler world.

 

[agentgonzo]

One key problem is, that it is not easy to implement collision detection in a whole solar system.

It shouldn't be too tricky. The solarsystem dynamics change very infrequently with time, and you only *really* need to do collision detection between the vessels and other objects. That means a relatively small source grouping and a static target tree for collision dection. The target tree needs to be reorganised very infrequently, and even then, only in small groups. The tree also only needs to be restructured (from a Vessel's POV) relatively infrequently when the closest two objects change which one is closest to the target vessel too.

It's not easy, but it's also not insurmountable.

 

[tgep]

A bit off topic but ......
Whether or not our RTF weapons in Orbiter are legal or not is sort of a moot point. The MK-82 is an old school gravity bomb slowed down by airbrakes that pop open after release.

Pictures and basic technicle data are readily availible on the net. If we can see a picture of it, chances are we can build it. The whole point of our weapons systems is to make them opperate as accurately as possible within the Orbiter framework to expand the capabilities of a combat craft in Orbiter.

 

[Pilot7893]

Bad is just that there is no flight simulator which does the Harrier with the "accuracy" of the old Harrier Jump Jet... The thrust vector maneuver in dog fighting does not work in more recent ones I played.

Only one I've seen with a Harrier is Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. I was expecting the Harrier to include some no-stall mechanism (or at least reduced stall). Nope. Just the same as the other jets, only less maneuverable.

 

[ar81]

You do realize you are just preaching to the choir, that he is nothing but a troll, and this is exactly what he had hoped for..... right?

I did not start the thread to reply to a troll, but to reply to the flashback of having misjudged Orbiter myself in the first moments. So it was more a reply to myself.

I thought it could have been interesting to know what people thought in the very first seconds of using Orbiter. The uncivilized thread was turned into a civilized one. So the trolling effect got the reverse effect.

We turned a flame war into an civilzed thread. I do not see a reason to laugh. Do you?

 

[Wraith]

I think it's pretty pointless to point out the point of Orbiter. The genre of simulations, and esp. realistic(*) simulations, attracts people of a certain mindset. That includes overall erudition, curiosity and desire to discover, also patience and being not afraind of a huge learning curve.

Yes, a newcomer will have to read 'Go Play In Space', study the basics of orbital mechanics before he can jump into the Deltaglider and blast off. Yes, one will have to read (and understand) lots of fine manuals. And a general interest in (i.e. basic knowledge of) astronomy helps a lot too.

People of those qualities and abilities are generally able to understand the points of a space simulation without any additional guidelines, it's kind of obvious to them. Those who neither have the desire to learn nor the abilities, do not become orbinauts, I think it's that simple.

---
* - meaning "plausible and sufficiently detailed". Falcon, Lockon, MSFS, Xplane are, but, say, Mechwarrior isn't.

 

[Usquanigo]

I did not start the thread to reply to a troll, but to reply to the flashback of having misjudged Orbiter myself in the first moments. So it was more a reply to myself.

I thought it could have been interesting to know what people thought in the very first seconds of using Orbiter. The uncivilized thread was turned into a civilized one. So the trolling effect got the reverse effect.

We turned a flame war into an civilzed thread. I do not see a reason to laugh. Do you?

Yeah, I do. I don't mean to belittle you or your thread's goals, I can see the validity. But think of it from the point of view of a troll. It says that you were clearly burned (even if you weren't) and his troll was successful. But the nature of that previous thread shows that it was successful too.

I was just sayin'.

---------- Post added at 10:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 PM ----------

realistic(*) simulations
---
* - meaning "plausible and sufficiently detailed". Falcon, Lockon, MSFS, Xplane are, but, say, Mechwarrior isn't.

This is why I use the term "accurate". When people hear "realistic", unless they understand and agree, they will always find something to try to bust on and "prove" (in their minds) how it's entirely NOT realistic. No matter how much it actually IS.

Also, "accurate simulation" allows one to extend into the realm of MechWarrior as well. For example, MechWarrior 3 is an accurate BT sim (all in all), MW 4 is most certainly NOT. It's just how accurate it is within itself, and how much it represents and matches what it is supposed to. So that means it works (as a term) whether you are talking about a Bf-109, or an Assault Mech.