Is Orbiter dying a slow death ???

[Tex]

I haven't noticed any general decrease in activity in our community. New members still join Orbiter-Forum (there are 10-15 new members per day, spambots excluded).

Additionally we have 300+ registered members and countless guests visiting the forum on a daily basis. We've seen hundreds of new posts everyday as well through out this month. Take a look at the number of posts over the past two years in comparison to this year. I don't see the community dying off. What you do see is the usual trend around the summer holidays when traffic picks up the most and then around the winter holidays when it slows down the most.

[/end thread]

 

[george7378]

I was sort of like this, I wanted to be an Astronomer for the longest of times. But when I found out what it was like I just switched into something else. I looked into the telescope and didn't see space battles and aliens and got bored.

I also started astronomy about the same time as orbiter, and I haven't really lost any interest yet, although I haven't been doing it that much lately, because I don't really want to make time to stay up late when all I would rather do is get to bed ready for the next day. I still love it, but the constant cloud and freezing weather keep me inside most of the time.

I think another reason I have lost interest in my simulators is because no matter how proficient you get at them, if you ever had to fly a real plane/spaceship, you know it would be nothing like your sim experiences anyway! I am slowly learning to fly for real, but I haven't had a lesson in a year or so because, again, it takes time to study and revise the stuff, and I really can't be bothered right now.

 

[rodion_herrera]

I think another reason I have lost interest in my simulators is because no matter how proficient you get at them, if you ever had to fly a real plane/spaceship, you know it would be nothing like your sim experiences anyway!

Again, I would have to disagree. Some time in 2002, a friend who owned and operated a Cessna 182G offered to take me for a ride. After takeoff, he let me fly the plane via GPS (we had several fixes punched in) right up until approach (I actually wanted to use the NAV/VOR/OBI but he said the NAVs along our route were inactive--third world country, what do you expect). I even had a bit of fun descending and circling some hills. And I have to say that I wouldn't have been able to do that, without simming experience with the Cessna 182 in MS Flight Simulator. Now I know a Cessna is a lot simpler than an A320 or the Space Shuttle, but you perhaps get my drift.

-RODION

 

[mojoey]

Additionally we have 300+ registered members and countless guests visiting the forum on a daily basis. We've seen hundreds of new posts everyday as well through out this month. Take a look at the number of posts over the past two years in comparison to this year. I don't see the community dying off. What you do see is the usual trend around the summer holidays when traffic picks up the most and then around the winter holidays when it slows down the most.

[/end thread]

*chants* we're gonna die! we're gonna die! *notices post* ohhh....

they'll be back, they always come back...

 

[RisingFury]

I haven't put this though a "running average" filter, but just by looking at it, I'd say the activity is increasing.

@Yoda:
You claim the activity is decreasing and Orbiter is dying. In your first post you claim the leaving of "big" members and addon developers... but I don't think you've taken into account that new addon developers continue to learn new skills and new members are becoming active.

It's easy to pioneer an area in addon development: Be the first to create a DeltaGliderIV style vessel, be the first to do a WI style base or the first to do a plugin. That's easy! Doing one that is one-up is MUCH harder. Orbiter is now 10 years old and a lot of the easy stuff has already been done, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a decrease in addon development. It'd still be nice to see OH upload statistics and I'd bet those haven't declined.

 

[Yoda]

OK, so first, if you wanted to start a discussion whether Orbiter community is dying, the title you used for this thread is misleading, as Orbiter is still being developed. Can I rename it to "Is Orbiter community dying a slow death ???"?
.

No not really; the issue is not with the Forum, the amount of members that visit the forum or the number of posts on the forum.

My general observation to start out with ( don't crucify me for making a observation) was simply that there is a significant decrease in new additions beeing developed for the Orbiter program itself.
It seems like we're running out of idea's for REALISTIC add-ons ( probably somewhat driven by the declining trend of real life space-flight).

Has nothing to do with this forum; this forum discusses many, many more things than just Orbiter.

 

[Pipcard]

No not really; the issue is not with the Forum, the amount of members that visit the forum or the number of posts on the forum.

My general observation to start out with ( don't crucify me for making a observation) was simply that there is a significant decrease in new additions beeing developed for the Orbiter program itself.
It seems like we're running out of idea's for REALISTIC add-ons ( probably somewhat driven by the declining trend of real life space-flight).

Has nothing to do with this forum; this forum discusses many, many more things than just Orbiter.

So, you're talking about add-ons, not Orbiter itself. And just because there aren't a lot of vessel add-ons (especially realistic ones) being made every month doesn't mean Orbiter is dying. I'll say it again, people shouldn't be pressured to make more add-ons.

Also, in your opening post, you talked about the departure of past add-on devs and forum members.

 

[Tommy]

It seems like we're running out of idea's for REALISTIC add-ons ( probably somewhat driven by the declining trend of real life space-flight).

Well, most of the real spacecraft have already been made into add-ons. You won't see an increase in "realistic" spacecraft until there is an increase in REAL spacecraft.

I also think there is a mis-perception caused by the multitude of "simple" add-ons. It's much easier to make a new XR-2 skin or UCGO cargo than it is to develop a whole new vessel from scratch. This lowers the bar, so more people can contribute.

In other words, is it truly that the number of "realistic/quality" add-ons had diminished - or is it that that the number of "skin/UCGO" add-ons has increased - which makes the number of "realistic/quality" add-ons SEEM less by comparison?

I think it is a bit of both - and I wouldn't have it any other way!

Of course a new wave of real spacecraft would certainly be reflected in Orbiter - to the benefit of us all....

 

[ADSWNJ]

For me, I'm still in awe of Orbiter 2010. I struggle to find as much time as I would like to it versus real life, but hey. I come to Orbiter with a background of playing loads of flight sims, more interested in the heavy jets and more complex flight checklists, etc than the graphics per se. I also have a strong math/physics background, love astronomy, love any and all details from every NASA mission, comp-sci degree and have worked in corporate IT now for 20+ years.

I started off getting the DG into orbit, figuring out how to change plane, raise the periapsis, chase down ISS, dock, etc. Then going to the moon, touch and gos into Brighton Beach. Then playing with TransX and IMFD to go further, out to Mars and its moons, Jupiter, etc. Thinking - gee why do Phobos and IO have such little gravity, etc!!

About 3 months ago, I got into the XR-2 and XR-5 and was just blown away with the beauty of those vehicles and the cockpits. Doing a docking onto the roof-mounted connector with the thrusters on docking mode, etc. Wondering why a puff of main engine thrust went totally in the wrong direction until remembering I'm on docking settings, etc!

I'm currently working through OFSS III missions. First one - easy and gorgeous to watch the multiple stage launch. Second one - figuring out how to use the remote arm for the first time, flying the various modules into a hard dock with the first module from the last flight ... awesome.

So ... for me, this is still an expanding set of opportunities, and I am hugely grateful for all the talented programmers and 3D mesh/graphics guys still working on this environment.

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

I would like to see some kind of progression of missions from the most basic spin around the moon to the most complex deadstick return in a crippled ship. Some way to deal with everybody's current skill level and motivate them to get to the next level, learning new things, asking the dumb questions, then giving back to the lower levels, etc.

The same thing could apply to the astrophysics side as well. I would *love* to work out from first principles how to fly the Juno mission by hand. I.e. how to get into a resonant orbit with multiple fly-bys of Earth to get to Jupiter. I would *love* to become super-proficient at the deep space tools (TransX / IMFD) to do some complex alignments, find optimal windows, etc. No idea how to do this or where to start.

Finally - the same thing can apply to addons. I've coded all kinds of systems in my personal and professional career, from assembler on mainframes and VAXes to X-Windows graphics, to database interfaces, to W32 apps in VC and VC++. No idea where to start to help this community by using these skills to assist on development. It would be great to have a bootcamp to get to a basic "my first MFD", "my first set of orbital math", "my first mesh", then ease into doing some coding work on a team. Any ideas?

I think that this community is just *us* and what we want to do with this platform to contribute back. To the most experienced guys on all these areas (flying, calculating or coding), think about how to make a learning tree to encourage others up to join you. To the guys that just play, think about how YOU can give back to this community. Somewhere in between is something very special for all of us - and maybe just in reach.

 

[n122vu]

Well, to answer your point about getting started with addon development, I would direct you to this thread:

Add-on Development Resources

Helped me immensely. I too have a background in coding and felt like I should give something back. Though my C++ skills are weak at best, I had fun learning what I have so far while making the Cortez.

And, to the topic, As long as Dr. Schweiger continues to develop and release beta versions ahead of full releases/patches, I don't think it's even feasible to suggest Orbiter itself is dying at all.

 

[T.Neo]

I don't think one can say that pretty much every spacecraft has been modelled into an addon. There is a huge extensive plethora of spacecraft concepts out there; only a very small percentage actually get built or even progress to a serious stage.

So, I will now make a list of annoying, downright demands: in the 1990s, there was this interesting testbed, the DC-X. Where is the DC-X/DC-XA addon for Orbiter?

For that matter, where is the X-33 addon for Orbiter 2010?

And it does not stop there. What about a Magnum addon? Or how about the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Launch_System"]National Launch System[/ame]? That asymmetric vehicle would be very fun to fly to orbit.

How about the early space station proposals? Like the Dual-Keel station:

Or the Power Tower:

What about a Bigelow addon? Or the original Boeing EELV proposal, the one with SSMEs in a detachable pod:

And, let's not forget the Kistler K-1, which should be around just to remind us that 'Reusable Launch Vehicle' need not mean spaceplane, SSTO, or VTOVL:

It was even proposed to use it for COTS work:

So: there are tons of addons out there, that just haven't been made yet. We haven't "run out" of anything, but perhaps we're low on enthusiasm and free time...

 

[luki1997a]

My answer to the question in title:
graphic, updates, source opened for trusted devs, directx, add-ons. That's all.

btw greetings from turkey

 

[n122vu]

MarkD's original X-33 addon should be easy enough to update to SC3. I'll contact him about updating, and if he approves, I might do that over the next few days since there's not much to getting it updated. Would at least get it in Orbiter 2010, until someone has time to make a proper .dll version.

 

[Piper]

MarkD's original X-33 addon should be easy enough to update to SC3.

Spacecraft3.dll, that's something I would love to see updated. It's already pretty good, but there are some things that do need to be improved on it. The biggest thing that needs to be changed IMHO is the payload function. You can only jettison something directly fore or aft, and you can't specify the orientation of what you are releasing either.

Anyways, back to the original topic, I don't think Orbiter is dying. I have found that many of the "old school" devolpers have left or have gone quiet, but I've found over the years Orbiter goes throughs ups and downs of devolper activity. Right now it is somewhat quiet, but in a few months time you never know. And as other have said, there hasn't been much new development in the real spaceflight world, so that will have an effect as well. I havn't done much developing myself in a while, but that's begun to change. I'm creating my first new add-ons in ages (namely my Brighton Base terrain), plus I'm developing a new tool for people to generate terrain from greyscale images.

Orbiter isn't dead, hibernating maybe, but certainly not dead.

 

[Rtyh-12]

I don't think Orbiter is dead. Maybe stuff is going on slower, but as long as the doc keeps developing Orbiter, and there's no reason to believe that he will stop any time soon. I've only been here for a year, so I'm not sure how things were like a few years ago. But everything has its ups and downs and I'm sure so does Orbiter add-ons development.

I'm developing a new tool for people to generate terrain from greyscale images.

That sounds awesome, hopefully we'll have terrain everywhere soon!

 

[n122vu]

Last I heard Vinka was working on an update to SC3, but possibly just for O2010 compatibility. Agree, would be nice to see some changes there, like ability to set location of ROT thruster effect, rather than have all ROT force applied 1M from the center of gravity.

Speaking of SC3, was able to get the X-33 updated fairly quickly, though still working on getting the launch complex into the EDW cfg. Lunch is over so will have to wait till later to tinker. I've so far been unable to contact MarkD. I'll continue trying to reach him if I can find other contact info.

Agree that "hibernating" is the perfect description of the current state of Orbiter as a whole.

 

[Piper]

That sounds awesome, hopefully we'll have terrain everywhere soon!

That's the idea I've gotten pretty bored of just landing on a flat surface when I go somewhere, and I like to be able to enjoy the scenery. After all, what's the point in doing an EVA when there's nothing to see? I've actually been surprised how easy the program has been to write. I thought it was going to be incredibly difficult, but I did probably 90% of the work in just a single night, and it already spits out fairly reliable meshes in the right proportions. The only things left to do are to make it account for the curvature of the moon (or whatever other object you've chosen), and to add in a few more controls. After that, the only difficult part will be getting will be getting greyscale images to use, lol.

 

[Urwumpe]

I wouldn't even say hibernating. It is all condition green. No special activity, no little activity. What is a bit missing is BrianJ or Kev33 releasing add-ons by month, but then, there is no real stagnation in add-on making. The demands have just increased. We have a few elder programmers caught by real life, and a few more younger programmers learning to fill the ranks.

 

[statisticsnerd]

I remember doing a web search for "space simulator" back in 2005 and stumbling upon Orbiter. I soon became obsessed with not just the simulator itself but orbital mechanics, astronomy, and spaceflight. I did the Voyager missions, the Apollo 10 mission using NASSP, made countless trips to Mars, learned how to do slingshots to visit Pluto, visited Jupiter's moons, and even managed to land on Phobos without falling off of it. That all lasted for about three years, while I was in college.

Then I got a real job and developed more adult obligations, so I kind of lost interest. Tonight I installed Orbiter on my laptop and did the Apollo 10 mission again in NASSP 7 beta. Before that, it had been over two years since I had touched Orbiter. And what's sad is that I didn't really enjoy going through the checklists for a couple of hours and planning the TLI, establishing orbit, etc. like I used to.

 

[NovaSilisko]

I'm trying my best to construct realistic spacecraft based on my own ideas - effectively no references. I just hope someday I have enough skill to fly them.


Edit:

>noticed previous post dates excluding the last one
>feels dumb