Is Interstellar Flight being seriously Considered as part of Orbiter?

[T.Neo]

Would I blow up? My whole point is about discovering and exploring.

While I agree with your ethic of "discovery and exploration", I must say that you don't need to go to another planet to see if activating rocket engines in a methane atmosphere would cause it to ignite...

 

[deltawing777]

While I agree with your ethic of "discovery and exploration", I must say that you don't need to go to another planet to see if activating rocket engines in a methane atmosphere would cause it to ignite...

Lol it was just a example...not meant to be taken literally. Ok As I am traveling through the methane atmosphere I would lower my Fuel "scoop" and collect methane to be used by the ship for fuel or air freshener :rofl:

 

[Bonanza123d]

Lol it was just a example...not meant to be taken literally. Ok As I am traveling through the methane atmosphere I would lower my Fuel "scoop" and collect methane to be used by the ship for fuel or air freshener :rofl:

I will not be using that as air freshener.

But I would like to see actual physics in space.

 

[Zachstar]

Yes, yes it does matter if I get annoyed.

Please read up about actual interstellar spacecraft and some of the very interesting ideas put forth by distinguished scientists.

It isn't Star Trek. Claiming that it is, is sad ignorance.

Already interstellar space is just as goverened by newtonian physics, as interplanetary space is. Except when you are traveling at relativistic velocities (also not Star Trek: We have accelerated particles to relativistic velocities, and our most accurate orbit predictions incorperate relativity), but then, it is as goverened by relativistic physics as interplanetary space is.

I know all about the proposed "Warp" and "jump" systems being talked about. You know how much addon work they will seriously get? Not nearly as much as the thousandth version of the Enterprise or X-Wing. So again it doesn't matter if you get annoyed because you aren't going to get a community focused on making even remotely realistic interstellar craft.

Orbiter belongs in sublight and solar system simulation. Getting annoyed about it doesn't matter.

 

[T.Neo]

"Warp" and "jump" systems? Where?

I really, really get annoyed when people think "interstellar travel" and automatically also think "WARP DRIVES YO".

There are concepts out there- valid- scientific concepts- that have as much to do with X-wings as an Apollo command module. Please do some research before you make such an absolute statement.

And even if there was a sort of... "warp" concept, it would again be nothing like Star Trek, and would be very poorly supported by Nano SpaceShooter 30000, or whatever. In fact, if I had a magic box that allowed me to go faster than light, I would already build a spacecraft around it, that would have more in common with the Apollo Command Module than any... X-wing.

You may think Orbiter belongs in 'sublight and solar system simulation', but there are others that do not.

After a while, flying around the Sol system again and again and again gets boring. I want to go somewhere else once in a while, and darn it, I want to go to that somewhere else in a proper manner, not via some rubbish space shooter.

 

[hypersonic]

Zachstar "Orbiter belongs in sublight and solar system simulation"

In reference to 'solar system simulation only':
Orbiter doesn't support interstellar travel yet because it hasn't BEEN implemented yet only. NOT because Martin wants to limit the scope of what Orbiter will or will not simulate in the future ...
MARTIN HIMSELF in the Interview i posted a link too (Did you bother reading it?) actually states that Interstellar flight in a strong possibility in a future version.
- So are you saying Martin himself is wrong to implement it in his OWN simulator, that we graciously get to use?

Imagine if the earlier versions of orbiter ONLY simulated LEO orbit, with NO interplanetary simulation.
Then someone suggests .. "What about simulating interplanetary flight" ..
Then someone sounding similar to you 'moans' ... "I don't see the point of that.. I'm happy with just going round & round the earth in little circles!"

The fact is, interstellar space exists, and space & navigating through it IS what Orbiter simulates, & is striving to simulate in ALL its facets eventually.

The point of this thread WASN'T to have a moan about wanting or not wanting interstellar flight, but instead to discuss the beginnings of simulating it from a Logistical standpoint, that may help Martin in his developmental processes.

 

[Izack]

There are addons and addons, I guess. If simulated interstellar flight comes to pass, sure, a resurgence of Star-Trek warp drive thingamajigs will occur, but also some developers will work on and release realistic add-ons for actually proposed designs, and some original yet well-thought-out and plausible designs of their own, just like what's going on now, and has been since Orbiter started. Not everyone here is incapable of rocket science.

 

[Tex]

I realize there will always be a difference in opinions; we're all different after all! It's only natural someone will be more passionate about this topic than another person will be. Let's remain calm and have a serious discussion about this. I for one am very interested in the possibilities! :thumbup:

 

[sfpilot]

isn't that what SpaceWay's all about?

 

[Hartmann]

Zachstar "Orbiter belongs in sublight and solar system simulation"

In reference to 'solar system simulation only':
Orbiter doesn't support interstellar travel yet because it hasn't BEEN implemented yet only. NOT because Martin wants to limit the scope of what Orbiter will or will not simulate in the future ...
MARTIN HIMSELF in the Interview i posted a link too (Did you bother reading it?) actually states that Interstellar flight in a strong possibility in a future version.
- So are you saying Martin himself is wrong to implement it in his OWN simulator, that we graciously get to use?

Imagine if the earlier versions of orbiter ONLY simulated LEO orbit, with NO interplanetary simulation.
Then someone suggests .. "What about simulating interplanetary flight" ..
Then someone sounding similar to you 'moans' ... "I don't see the point of that.. I'm happy with just going round & round the earth in little circles!"

The fact is, interstellar space exists, and space & navigating through it IS what Orbiter simulates, & is striving to simulate in ALL its facets eventually.

The point of this thread WASN'T to have a moan about wanting or not wanting interstellar flight, but instead to discuss the beginnings of simulating it from a Logistical standpoint, that may help Martin in his developmental processes.

Now is more interesting because there are a lot of real exoplanets and systems dyscovered by telescopes and probes , so it´s possible make realistic scenarios.

 

[jedidia]

isn't that what SpaceWay's all about?

As far as I know, spaceway too has a newtonian framework, not a relativistic one. But it's architecture is designed to handle a complete universe (yes, multiple galaxies). The problem here is that the creation of said universe is at the very heart of the spaceway engine, with newtonian physics thrown in as a realism gimmick.

Orbiter doesn't work that way. It's current heart is the newtonian physics engine. The architecture could be adapted to manage multiple planetary systems, sure. But unless you want to put in a fully procedural engine, all these systems will have to be pre-defined.
On the other hand the whole physics are already completely detached from the graphics that it would be possible to put the whole procedural stuff into a graphics client if the orbiter architecture was more dynamic.

But what is a real problem is the switch to relativity: It requires no less than a heart transplantation. If Martin finds it challenging to do, I'll welcome it. But if he doesn't want to go through that kind of work, I won't blame him either.

but instead to discuss the beginnings of simulating it from a Logistical standpoint, that may help Martin in his developmental processes.

Problem is, there isn't much to the logistics. You have to replace newtonian with relativistic. Core rewrite, period. Probably not from scratch, but not too far from it, I'd wager.

As for a more dynamic architecture, that could be achieved more simply, but it's not a cakewalk either. Replacing the whole memory management, I'd guess, as well as opening up a lot of private functions to the public. Also, replacing the current pre-load scheme with an LOD structure. That would include some excessive multithreading, but for the doc that's not really going to be a problem. It would take some time to refit the current graphics clients, though.

The question here is of course: Can we have a dynamic architecture without relativity? The answer to that, I'd say, is no, as interstellar space without relativistic physics really isn't along the orbiter-realism-guidlines. So in the end, it'll be a core rewrite anyway you turn it.

@Zachstar: You know, with relativistic physics implemented, Star Trek developers will actually have a tougher job. They wouldn't be able to just propell their ships through the universe with insane thrust, because there won't be any breaking the lightbarrier anymore. Something like Warp MFD should still work, though.

 

[T.Neo]

because there won't be any breaking the lightbarrier anymore

This. While I fully support implementation of relativistic physics (despite the fact that I think there are some unresolved issues as to how it should be simulated), effective FTL should not be disallowed outright by the program. It doesn't have to be implemented by the core, but disallowing it entirely would be pretty annoying.