General Question Orbiter Collisions

[ssope]

Why is it that orbiter collisions are non-existant? Why is it that after two attempts (meshland and orulex) that it is still not here? Does Martin Schweiger have any plans on encorporating collsisions (and/or) 3-Dimensional terrain? At the very least, does he have plans on attempting to accodomate such an addon? When one makes an interplanetary journey and arrives at nothing but a blank surface, it isn't even much fun to perform an EVA. AMSO makes a FEW places on the surface on the moon fun to explore, but like I said, a FEW. [Post Script: I am not trying to insult orbiter, it truly is absolutely amazing]

 

[ky]

3D terrain would greatly reduce the framerate in orbiter so Thats why we create our own add-ons incorporating it.

 

[ssope]

3D terrain would greatly reduce the framerate in orbiter so Thats why we create our own add-ons incorporating it.

unsuccessfully

 

[garyw]

Have a look at the addon devs here. There is a HUGE amount of skill and talent out there and from that talen we have just two addons that handle collisions.

Two. And those two are from the same author

That should give you an idea of how complex it is to deal with something that's not built into the core of orbiter.

As for Martin adding this functionality - if he chooses to do so then he chooses to do so. Personally I'd rather that he keep expanding the physics engine but that's my preferance.

If you want collision detection so badly why not have a go at adding the functionality yourself?

 

[Mojave]

As stated before, collisions and 3D terrain are not at the top of anyones list. It can be rather pointless, and isn't really what Orbiter was intended to have. orbiter is a space sim, and while terrain and collision detection may make it more realistic, it is not necessary for space flight; which is what orbiter is for.

And, collisions are not great when you are trying to dock; especially with older collision detection modules in the past.

 

[jangofett287]

Actually. Orulex doesn't have collision, it simply adds the 3d landscape. the option for collision sets whether or not to send the height data to meshland.

 

[Ripley]

...insult orbiter...

The Allmighty Probe in its encompassing wisdom has decided to forgive you for having formulated those two words in the same sentence.

 

[Moach]

one of the probems here just might be that most of the content (ships, bases) available for orbiter is user-made....

with that, it gets a lot tougher for ppl trying to add things like collision, for that would require a lot of content adaptations - i.e. addon makers would have to develop collision-meshes for their models


while this is not impossible to achieve, specially if collision gets tackled with a UMMU-like approach, the amount of work involved is probably a hassle greater than the importance most orbiter geeks give to collisions :hmm:


it's not the goal of the sim, too... if one "penetrates" the ISS during docking - the frustration there is usually large enough for most users to call it a "failure"....

orbinauts would usually give more attention to the fact that something like this did happen, than to it not being realistically corresponded with the expected effect



that's how i see it... if not - it would have been done already :

 

[redneck]

Why is it that orbiter collisions are non-existant? Why is it that after two attempts (meshland and orulex) that it is still not here? Does Martin Schweiger have any plans on encorporating collsisions (and/or) 3-Dimensional terrain? At the very least, does he have plans on attempting to accodomate such an addon? When one makes an interplanetary journey and arrives at nothing but a blank surface, it isn't even much fun to perform an EVA. AMSO makes a FEW places on the surface on the moon fun to explore, but like I said, a FEW. [Post Script: I am not trying to insult orbiter, it truly is absolutely amazing]

Lets just say I have been trying to figure this out myself. Orbiter is a space sim. I get that. But part of it is also "LANDING". I thought that landing on a surface should be just as realistic. Not just the physics but the surroundings as well. So why am I passing "Through" the ISS? But you get the same 'ol answer "If you want that then go make it" As if! I don't understand why it has to be one way. Why can't it be both ways? Physics AND realism. So I get bored and go play something else for awhile. But I always come back to orbiter just not as frequently as I used to.

 

[Pablo49]

Lets just say I have been trying to figure this out myself. Orbiter is a space sim. I get that. But part of it is also "LANDING". I thought that landing on a surface should be just as realistic. Not just the physics but the surroundings as well. So why am I passing "Through" the ISS? But you get the same 'ol answer "If you want that then go make it" As if! I don't understand why it has to be one way. Why can't it be both ways? Physics AND realism. So I get bored and go play something else for awhile. But I always come back to orbiter just not as frequently as I used to.

Preferably, you are trying to land on flat areas anyway, so no real loss there. ( I get wanting to go exploring on hill and craters etc, though. But even that is on the fringes)

As for passing through vessels, like ISS. It's fairly obvious. If suddenly you are in the middle of the ISS, you know you messed up. The visual feedback isn't as important.

Physics is realism. If you can't stay hooked on orbiter because of some visual issues, then that's not really the fault of orbiter. How much of your orbiter sim time is spent running around on the ground, or driving rovers everywhere, and how much time is spent in space?

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see terrain and such all built in one day, it would be neat. But I don't want it to come before other more important features. Orbiter is just Martin's hobby, and it's constantly evolving. Don't forget Orbiter isn't some fully complete product you grabbed off a shelf.

 

[Face]

But you get the same 'ol answer "If you want that then go make it" As if! I don't understand why it has to be one way. Why can't it be both ways? Physics AND realism. So I get bored and go play something else for awhile. But I always come back to orbiter just not as frequently as I used to.

So, basically what you write here is that it is frustrating that developers that give away their work for free are refusing to do what you say they should do.

On the one hand, I can understand that some people daydream how nice it would be to have their own code slaves to give 'em that shiny feature just NOW.

On the other hand, I can understand that Martin is doing what he wants to do in his free time, too.

To be honest, I feel more sympathy for the later than for the former.

my :2cents:

 

[redneck]

Preferably, you are trying to land on flat areas anyway, so no real loss there. ( I get wanting to go exploring on hill and craters etc, though. But even that is on the fringes)

As for passing through vessels, like ISS. It's fairly obvious. If suddenly you are in the middle of the ISS, you know you messed up. The visual feedback isn't as important.

Physics is realism. If you can't stay hooked on orbiter because of some visual issues, then that's not really the fault of orbiter. How much of your orbiter sim time is spent running around on the ground, or driving rovers everywhere, and how much time is spent in space?

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see terrain and such all built in one day, it would be neat. But I don't want it to come before other more important features. Orbiter is just Martin's hobby, and it's constantly evolving. Don't forget Orbiter isn't some fully complete product you grabbed off a shelf.

Yeah, I guess my expectations are just set to high.

 

[Mandella]

Turning this into more of a "request for features" rather than a "why don't I have this now!!!" thread, I have to say that I have gotten so used to Orulex that I really can't operate close to any planetary surface without it. It just blows the immersion.

Speaking of that, why would you list Orulex as a failure? It still works fine on 2006, and not that bad on 2010.

As for collisions, I have to say my number one use of collision detection would be for EVA's. It would be wonderful to be able to (gently) bounce off a craft I was "working" on or inspecting, or even better to be able to pull myself along rungs or girders to crawl about the exterior of my ship or station.

I am certainly not demanding that Martin or anyone else supply me with these activities, but I would say that this is one end user who would download and enjoy any such addon!

 

[redneck]

So, basically what you write here is that it is frustrating that developers that give away their work for free are refusing to do what you say they should do.

On the one hand, I can understand that some people daydream how nice it would be to have their own code slaves to give 'em that shiny feature just NOW.

On the other hand, I can understand that Martin is doing what he wants to do in his free time, too.

To be honest, I feel more sympathy for the later than for the former.

my :2cents:

No face I am not suggesting that anyone HAS to do anything. What I am saying is I don't understand why it hasn't been done yet in relation to orbiters age. See its this kind of thing. This opinion that orbiter has to be a certain way only because it has been that way so long. And when somebody asks why not? Then he gets ripped a new one? What is so wrong with wanting more realism in orbiter? I don't get it. Now I have to defend myself in the forums? Thats not right!

 

[Face]

No face I am not suggesting that anyone HAS to do anything. What I am saying is I don't understand why it hasn't been done yet in relation to orbiters age.

The answer to this question was given a bit to often now to have your "not understanding" say something other than what I posted before, IMHO.

AFAIK, Martin Schweiger is still the sole developer of the Orbiter core. The source of the core is not open, too. Therefore, what he is doing in his free time on it is what we will get.

Of course you can suggest something, but if it is repeated over and over again, and answered over and over again, the whole game gets a bit tiresome, don't you think?

See its this kind of thing. This opinion that orbiter has to be a certain way only because it has been that way so long. And when somebody asks why not? Then he gets ripped a new one?

I fail to see who gets ripped anything here. The reason why it is a certain way is because the developer decided so.

What is so wrong with wanting more realism in orbiter? I don't get it. Now I have to defend myself in the forums? Thats not right!

Nothing is wrong with wanting more realism, but if wanting becomes pushing, it is starting to get unfair and disrespectful. It's not what you say, but how you say it.

You only have to defend yourself if you are attacked personally. A personal attack on you would be not right, I agree. Do you feel like being attacked this way? If so, I'd suggest you report it.

 

[redneck]

The answer to this question was given a bit to often now to have your "not understanding" say something other than what I posted before, IMHO.

AFAIK, Martin Schweiger is still the sole developer of the Orbiter core. The source of the core is not open, too. Therefore, what he is doing in his free time on it is what we will get.

Of course you can suggest something, but if it is repeated over and over again, and answered over and over again, the whole game gets a bit tiresome, don't you think?



I fail to see who gets ripped anything here. The reason why it is a certain way is because the developer decided so.



Nothing is wrong with wanting more realism, but if wanting becomes pushing, it is starting to get unfair and disrespectful. It's not what you say, but how you say it.

You only have to defend yourself if you are attacked personally. A personal attack on you would be not right, I agree. Do you feel like being attacked this way? If so, I'd suggest you report it.

*sigh* I give up. You win. I'm just a end user/Dreamer. Who cares what I think would improve orbiter. Keep orbiter just like it is. Don't improve anything. Enjoy!

 

[orb]

*sigh* I give up. You win. I'm just a end user/Dreamer. Who cares what I think would improve orbiter. Keep orbiter just like it is. Don't improve anything. Enjoy!

Orbiter is being improved with every release. For example it's currently getting a weather.

The topic of Collision Detection is as old as I can remember. You don't need to recall it after every Orbiter release. It has been noted once as a feature request, and it could be in some distant plans, but not at the moment.

 

[Artlav]

Making something perfect is like accelerating to light speed - the closer you get, the more is the effort to make another improvement.

A system like that must be perfect. Or at least as close to perfection as you can get. If it's not, then nobody is going to make content for it.

The breakaway level of quality.

Imagine, Orbiter Immersion system. First-person view and control of the pilot, moving around the spacecraft and around it. Walk or float, push from the walls, several tools to help on EVA - grapple, broom, RCS pack of UMMU, usable elements like ladders or handholds. Openable doors in the vessel, interactive elements of all sorts. Going outside completely from leaving the cockpit, down through the airlock and out to the surface. Or over to the station.

Doable.
But is a royal waste of effort.

Orimmerse would include:
-collision detection module
-control overlay module for UMMU
-interaction definition module
-optionally, a terrain module

Each of them were made already, each can be useful in a limited domain.
They can even become good enough to put together a cool looking demo.

Problem?
The demo runs out of fun in an hour or so, and the system goes into oblivion buried under a hundred thanks.

Because besides the system there is CONTENT.

It needs:
-Total Immersion-grade meshes for vessels.
-Modules for various vessels with all that stuff and interactivity defined and linked.
-Trees of collision detection information for vessels, like ones used in FPS games.
-Tools and documentation for working with the above two.

Who is going to make it?

Unless the system itself is over the perfection threshold, nobody.

Existing systems like that are either simple and perfect - UMMU, OrbiterSound, even UCGO. Or generic and need no significant content changes - Universal cargo deck, Velcro rockets.

There are 20% of problems left to solve from demo to perfection threshold, but it takes 80% of effort to get it done.
Getting access to the core can simplify a few things a little, but won't solve the problems.

 

[Face]

*sigh* I give up. You win. I'm just a end user/Dreamer. Who cares what I think would improve orbiter. Keep orbiter just like it is. Don't improve anything. Enjoy!

Redneck, this is no fight where you have to have a winner and a loser. It is a discussion forum.

It is alright to discuss the demand for collision detection. Just, we didn't discuss it here, we got a thread asking why it isn't already implemented. In any project, this kind of behaviour is doing everything BUT convincing the author to implement it.

Everyone who wants collision detection: come up with ideas how it could be done, ask the author of already established solutions what are the key problems, where are pitfalls, what can be done to fix them, etc. But this here... no, sir, this will just not work.

And one last thing, redneck, before I have to leave this topic for today: you responded like I'd be in charge of Orbiter's roadmap. I can assure you, I am not. I just posted my opinion.

 

[garyw]

Everyone who wants collision detection: come up with ideas how it could be done, ask the author of already established solutions what are the key problems, where are pitfalls, what can be done to fix them, etc. But this here... no, sir, this will just not work.

We've also had at least three O-F members announce 'I am going to design collision detection for Orbiter!' Only to have silence after the first few excited posts right up to this day.

For the price of Orbiter and the addons compared to the amount of hours playability it's an absolute bargain!