Multiplayer Finally being created

Cooperation would of course be neat, but as this guy doesn't want to work with Face, then a competition is the next best thing. Anyway, let's stop off-topic posting here...
 
Boy! I sure did have fun with OMP this weekend. I got to meet alot of nice people in Teamspeak3. Had a absolute BLAST! So reguarding this new multiplayer,any code or updates website link , Svn, anything? Oh wow Bonanza123d hasn't posted in a while now. Humm....
 
Imagine trying to dock with Mir while having high latency :rofl:
 
Keatah said:
In the case of orbiter, I'd prefer to see co-operation instead of competition. With co-operation many different ideas can be put into one super-sonic-stellar package. Also less chance for two standards to be developed. Orbiter is complex enough as it is!
Click to expand...

Indeed. Co-operation is why I made OMP open source and put it up on a DVCS site: http://bitbucket.org/face/omp and http://omp.ddns.net/hg/omp.

Unfortunately, making development on open-source as easy as that means opening doors to wild forking.

Either way it is a matter of trust. Just like with the Linux kernel the average user will trust Linus' repository more than another one. If e.g. the OP forks OMP into OMPNG and completely changes the work-mode, you have to decide for yourself if you trust me more than the OP.

It will always be like that. Just imagine someone is fed up with Dan's OrbiterSound and writes another sound framework...

regards,
Face
 
Last edited:
Face said:
It will always be like that. Just imagine someone is fed up with Dan's OrbiterSound and writes another sound framework...
Click to expand...

Why not? It might be a bit hard to work with both frameworks at once, but if the new framework would permit that add-ons linked to it also work with orbitersound (but with less features), it would sure spread quickly...

If the need is there, somebody will do it.
 
I hate forks... bruised egos, and introduction of new bugs... Rewriting from a clean slate is IMHO better since it frees the architect from the fetters of the old design (while also tempting him with shiny new features, to be honest).
 
Wishbone said:
I hate forks... bruised egos, and introduction of new bugs... Rewriting from a clean slate is IMHO better since it frees the architect from the fetters of the old design (while also tempting him with shiny new features, to be honest).
Click to expand...

Depends on how you fork... I know many forks that had been done in good relations, often resulting in a very active exchange of code between original and fork. Many Linux kernel extensions and improvements had actually been done essentially as forks, by distributors. Simply because not every extension was automatically ready for getting included in THE Kernel.
 
Hielor said:
Except not.

Simple example:
Server is running at 1x time accel. I'm standing at KSC at 8am in the morning, local KSC time. I time-accelerate to move forward a total of 10 hours and 1 minute in sim-time, taking only 1 minute in real-time, so the server now thinks it's 8:01am and I think it's 6:01pm.

How then do you resolve all of the differences between me and the server? For me, the Earth has moved 10 hours further along its orbit, so if you just transmit my coordinates to the server (as you suggest), I'll be floating in space at a point the Earth won't reach for another ten hours. If you synchronize with the planet (so I remain stationary at KSC), I will have seen the sun move almost completely across the sky. When I get re-synchronized to the server, the sun will jump from an hour or so before sunset to a couple hours after sunrise.

The moon and ISS will be different places than they were a moment before, which makes things like rendeszvous impossible (I time accel to orbit and catch the ISS, then turn off time accel and the ISS will be in a completely different place).

How is this even remotely a good illusion or "immersive"?
Click to expand...

Try playing FSX and pausing or slewing, you'll see their aircraft is just staying there in the air, 20 minutes passes by, 2 planes pass over it, the time changes on the server along with the client.

My explanation is totally worth a :facepalm:
 
Phillips said:
Try playing FSX and pausing or slewing, you'll see their aircraft is just staying there in the air, 20 minutes passes by, 2 planes pass over it, the time changes on the server along with the client.

My explanation is totally worth a <img src="images/smilies/facepalm.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Facepalm" smilieid="169" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

FSX doesn't have to deal with orbital mechanics. When you pause in FSX multiplayer, you're not actually stopping time...you're just stopping all your movement and hanging stationary at a given point above the ground. When you resume, you'll continue with whatever velocity you had before. This works fine for FSX, which has a global constant reference point that you can kill motion relative to (the ground) without impacting your flight path relative to the ground. Orbiter has no such reference point--if you kill motion relative to the Sun, the other bodies will continue moving, so your carefully plotted course is now worthless.

The closest analogue in terms of FSX multiplayer would be an aircraft carrier--if you have an aircraft carrier steaming along, and you're set up for a perfect final approach to it, then pause...the aircraft carrier will keep moving away from you, since you've killed your motion relative to the earth (but not relative to the ship). When you resume from pause, the aircraft carrier will no longer be in front of you, and your perfect landing will turn into a go-around or a long swim.

Make sense?
 
Last edited:
Hielor said:
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p>FSX doesn't have to deal with orbital mechanics. When you pause in FSX multiplayer, you're not actually stopping time...you're just stopping all your movement and hanging stationary at a given point above the ground. When you resume, you'll continue with whatever velocity you had before. This works fine for FSX, which has a global constant reference point that you can kill motion relative to (the ground) without impacting your flight path relative to the ground. Orbiter has no such reference point--if you kill motion relative to the Sun, the other bodies will continue moving, so your carefully plotted course is now worthless.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The closest analogue in terms of FSX multiplayer would be an aircraft carrier--if you have an aircraft carrier steaming along, and you're set up for a perfect final approach to it, then pause...the aircraft carrier will keep moving away from you, since you've killed your motion relative to the earth (but not relative to the ship). When you resume from pause, the aircraft carrier will no longer be in front of you, and your perfect landing will turn into a go-around or a long swim.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Make sense?</p>
Click to expand...

<p> Yeah, I get it now.</p>
<p> :lol: </p>
 
all those <p>'s are supposed to be Cheshire <g>'s... :)
 
I would love a multiplayer version where you put two joysticks at the computer and fly with splitscreen.
 
Instead of having other users in other craft, would it be possible to have another player as passenger in a craft?
 
Danzig70 said:
Instead of having other users in other craft, would it be possible to have another player as passenger in a craft?
Click to expand...

You can join as observer and use a server command to register to a craft. You will then see everything this vessel sees, F3 to it, and take seat somewhere in the passenger area. It is funny to watch a flight from a passenger seat.
 
Yes indeed. Face has... experienced... one of my smoother landings in a DG. >.>
 
HAL9001 said:
I would love a multiplayer version where you put two joysticks at the computer and fly with splitscreen.
Click to expand...
Multiplayer via two people at the same computer hasn't really been supported by complex games in like a decade...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dgatsoulis
Project Orbiter MediaPlayerMFD open for testing [CLOSED]
Replies
12
Views
5K
dgatsoulis
dgatsoulis
DecoFox
Problem My vessel DLL crashes on launch, but only sometimes
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
Blake
B
Boxx
Question Time acceleration management
Replies
7
Views
3K
Boxx
Boxx
polaris149Tiberius
Tutorial Tutorial Development On Orbiter 2016 Stock Space Shuttle ISS to KSC Ballistic Re-entry Case Study Project -v1.0
Replies
0
Views
5K
polaris149Tiberius
polaris149Tiberius
LadyCroussette
Project Sailing a Brig
2
Replies
22
Views
7K
Thunder Chicken
Thunder Chicken
Back
Top