Question Most Realistic Orbiter Spacecraft ?

[-Apollo-]

So what's the most realistic (that really exist) spacecraft ever made for Orbiter ? (in systems, dynamics etc) :blink:

 

[hribek]

The "ultra" versions of addons. Namely Space Shuttle Ultra.

XR ships are not real, but the flight model (not necessarily control) is above average in complexity, which makes them attractive.

I wish more spacecraft join that select group, including some I am making right now or plan for the future.

 

[Urwumpe]

Vostok, by far.

 

[Rtyh-12]

Depends on how far in the future you go. Space Shuttle Ultra is very realistic. NASSP and AMSO are OK too, with NASSP being more realistic but AMSO having better models. In the far future you can try the DGIV or XR-2.

Edit: Only ships that really exist? Oops.

 

[-Apollo-]

Vostok, by far.

Can You please Give me the link, because i'm not sure wich one are You talking about..and is it compatible with Orbiter 2010 P1 ?

 

[diogom]

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=20928&highlight=vostok
I believe it's this one he's talking about.

 

[-Apollo-]

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=20928&highlight=vostok
I believe it's this one he's talking about.

:thankyou:

 

[N_Molson]

+ Thorton's addons, of course

 

[T.Neo]

DG/XRs are not realistic... not today, not in the far future.

They have a very detailed flight model but they're not based on any real numbers or capabilities.

For example, even if you could somehow get an XR2 into the air, it would immediately nosedive straight into the ground... :uhh:

 

[diogom]

I agree with N_Molson, anything from Thorton is great.

 

[Wishbone]

... and igel...

 

[Mister Mxyzptlk]

Thorton is Probe Vicar!

 

[N_Molson]

I'd say he is in the most straight probodox current over here

 

[-Apollo-]

I Still think that NASSP is the best Add-on Ever made for Orbiter !!!

 

[Izack]

For example, even if you could somehow get an XR2 into the air, it would immediately nosedive straight into the ground... :uhh:

Why? I understand that the propulsion technology and is purely fantastic, and that the propellant tanks must be TARDIS-derived, but the aerodynamics don't seem that ridiculous. (Although the centre of lift does seem a tad far aft...)

 

[T.Neo]

Why? I understand that the propulsion technology and is purely fantastic, and that the propellant tanks must be TARDIS-derived, but the aerodynamics don't seem that ridiculous. (Although the centre of lift does seem a tad far aft...)

The "seems a tad far aft" bit is the problem. It really is too far aft, so far aft that it makes the vehicle unflyable.

In addition to that there are the scram diffusers, that are very clearly made of unobtanium, not to mention the scrams themselves, which somehow manage to burn even at 80 km- where they manage to get their oxygen from is anyone's guess...

 

[N_Molson]

Don't forget the hovers and the retros

 

[T.Neo]

Indeed, the hovers and the retros... they are not intrinsically unrealistic (though they are far worse than even the main engines when it comes to engineering consequences not being portrayed*), but there really isn't any reason for them to be there, they're there only for gameplay reasons.

*The abilities of the DG/XR engines are not physically impossible, it's just that concepts that allow that sort of performance come with a whole lot of technical baggage and engineering constraints that these vessels simply don't portray.

 

[blixel]

*The abilities of the DG/XR engines are not physically impossible, it's just that concepts that allow that sort of performance come with a whole lot of technical baggage and engineering constraints that these vessels simply don't portray.

I've wondered about this. Take X-Plane as an example. According to their website, the way it works is, "...by reading in the geometric shape of any aircraft and then figuring out how that aircraft will fly. It does this by an engineering process called "blade element theory", which involves breaking the aircraft down into many small elements and then finding the forces on each little element many times per second. These forces are then converted into accelerations, which are then integrated to velocities and positions."

With that in mind, I have wondered what would happen if you built a Delta-glider model that would work in X-Plane. (Just the shape / weight distribution / flight characteristics of the Delta-glider. Minus the fantasy engine technology.) Then mount the Delta-glider under the wing of another plane, carry it up to an altitude of, say, 10 kilometers (about 33,000 feet) in X-Plane, and let it go.

What would happen?

I suspect ... if X-Plane's "blade element theory" works how I imagine (which I envision as like a virtual wind tunnel simulator) ... that the Delta-glider would "fly" like a rock all the way to the ground. (Maybe tumble end over end once, or do a couple of cartwheels before crashing into the ground.)

 

[T.Neo]

That would probably be the outcome in regards to the XR2, but the DG/DGIV would probably fair better.

RisingFury constructed an RC DGIV, and made the following modifications:

- Larger vertical stailizers. Planes like vertical stabilizers...
- Larger control surfaces both on the wings and on the stabilizers.
- "Straighter" wings. If you look at the real DGIV, you'll notice thick wing close to the body and thin wing at the tips. I modified that so that the wing is almost the same thickness on all parts. That eliminated a lot of construction problems and reduced drag at the same time.
- Slight modifications to the underside of the body for easier constructon and better structural strength.

So the deltaglider probably comes a lot closer to being aerodynamically sound for subsonic flight.

Hypersonic flight is a different matter though.

And to add in the implausibility list: The rear yaw/X axis translation RCS on the DG would shoot exhaust into the vertical stabilisers...