General Question Spacecraft3.dll in Orbiter 2010

[DutchPlayer]

Hello there,

While I was looking throught the add-ons on Orbit hangar, I saw that many add-ons need Vinka's spacecraft3.dll. I went to the download page, and I can't find the version for Orbiter 2010.

Space Station building blocks need also the .dll, but this add-on is compitable for Orbiter 2010 (you can see it by recommended add-ons, at this forum).

The problem: there is no spacecraft3.dll for Orbiter 2010.

If there is one, I'm really sorry!

Kind regards,

Dutchplayer

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Hello there,

While I was looking throught the add-ons on Orbit hangar, I saw that many add-ons need Vinka's spacecraft3.dll. I went to the download page, and I can't find the version for Orbiter 2010.

Space Station building blocks need also the .dll, but this add-on is compitable for Orbiter 2010 (you can see it by recommended add-ons, at this forum).

The problem: there is no spacecraft3.dll for Orbiter 2010.

If there is one, I'm really sorry!

Kind regards,

Dutchplayer

It still "works", so you can just install the one that says 2006. That being said, the addon has not been updated in a very long time and is very likely to eventually become incompatible with future orbiter development.

Speaking of the building blocks, I might be willing to redo the whole package as Dlled, UMMU/UCGO compatible modules with some consumeables simulation. Would there be interest in that?

 

[DutchPlayer]

I really think so! It sounds already good! It should be nice if you can put the blocks in the XR-5's payload.

I really think people will like it. They have to build it, expand it, power it, make sure the UMMU can stay there. It is a challange. And scenario/mission writers can write missions to build a space station. The UMMU need to get the cargo in the cargo bay. You know, there is a lot to do for the players who downloaded it.

You could make a thread on the forum, and let the people vote if they want it. I will vote for the YES!

I think it will be really apreciated by a lot of people.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

-snip-
It should be nice if you can put the blocks in the XR-5's payload.
-snip-

there is actually an addon over at the Hangar that does this for you.
Ah, here it is: [ame="http://orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=3426"]XR5 Payload - Station Building Blocks 4.1[/ame]

 

[Izack]

Speaking of the building blocks, I might be willing to redo the whole package as Dlled, UMMU/UCGO compatible modules with some consumeables simulation. Would there be interest in that?

Yes, definitely. :thumbup:

 

[MaverickSawyer]

-snip-
Speaking of the building blocks, I might be willing to redo the whole package as Dlled, UMMU/UCGO compatible modules with some consumeables simulation. Would there be interest in that?

It's called IMS. Although the UCGO compatibility is NOT implemented in IMS...

 

[Donamy]

... That being said, the addon has not been updated in a very long time and is very likely to eventually become incompatible with future orbiter development.

I doubt that !! It would kill too many addons, and would eliminate more than half the developers (me included), who don't code. :nono:

 

[Izack]

It's called IMS. Although the UCGO compatibility is NOT implemented in IMS...

Doesn't discount the usefulness of a standalone, simple (by comparison to IMS project, that is) conversion.

I doubt that !! It would kill too many addons, and would eliminate more than half the developers (me included), who don't code. :nono:

Maintaining old, unupdated addons isn't a priority in Orbiter development, as far as I know. However, it's probably still possible to contact Vinka, and perhaps obtain the source code and continue maintaining / developing Spacecraft 3. If I remember correctly, a user did get to him relatively recently (was it Epsilon, perhaps?)

 

[Donamy]

Maintaining old, unupdated addons isn't a priority in Orbiter development, as far as I know.?)

I don't think you are correct. Look at Dx9, it supports SC3.

However, it's probably still possible to contact Vinka, and perhaps obtain the source code and continue maintaining / developing Spacecraft 3. If I remember correctly, a user did get to him relatively recently (was it Epsilon, perhaps?)

I haven't heard this. I was in contact with him quite often in the past, but have not been able to get a response from him in a couple of years.

 

[Cras]

If SC3 becomes obsolete, everyone will suffer, for the reason Donamy pointed out.

It is important enough for there to be a way to get it to work in the graphics clients, which is the future of Orbiter anyway.

As for IMS...it does not work in graphics clients. And because of that, for me it might as well not even exist.

 

[DutchPlayer]

there is actually an addon over at the Hangar that does this for you.
Ah, here it is: XR5 Payload - Station Building Blocks 4.1

I know I already have it but thanks

 

[Izack]

I don't think you are correct. Look at Dx9, it supports SC3.

It does, by popular demand. But if Martin introduces a new feature or change that breaks spacecraft3, I don't see it being rolled back or fixed unless it's something trivial.

I haven't heard this. I was in contact with him quite often in the past, but have not been able to get a response from him in a couple of years.

Ah? I could easily be mistaken. :tiphat:

 

[Ripley]

IIRC, I've also read something about someone saying that Vinka was thinking of updating his packages.
Yes I know it sounds very vague, and it was quite some time ago too (can well be a couple of years ago), but that's what I recall...

 

[N_Molson]

That being said, the addon has not been updated in a very long time and is very likely to eventually become incompatible with future orbiter development.

I agree. SC3 is becoming a bit "antique".

I doubt that !! It would kill too many addons, and would eliminate more than half the developers (me included), who don't code.

Progress always comes at a price. And Orbiter definitively needs to go forward, addon compatibility must not be a brake. Also, there are many good tutorials, the hardest part of it is to install correctly VC++ and the libraries packages, really (and there is even a video tutorial for that) !

Also, don't forget that Artlav made an easy-to-use SC3 to DLL converter, it's a very useful asset.

Maintaining old, unupdated addons isn't a priority in Orbiter development, as far as I know.

I completely agree with that. It's the developper's job to keep their stuff updated.

 

[Ripley]

...Also, don't forget that Artlav made an easy-to-use SC3 to DLL converter, it's a very useful asset...

+1 :thumbup:

...It's the developper's job to keep their stuff updated.

Or donate his sources to the community, when in lack of time/motivation to mantain it.

 

[Donamy]

When you've donated months of hard work (with alot of love thrown in), and all that work gets forgotten, it tends to make the effort seem, well unappreciated. Most developers just leave.

 

[Izack]

When you've donated months of hard work (with alot of love thrown in), and all that work gets forgotten, it tends to make the effort seem, well unappreciated. Most developers just leave.

In the past, it's been shown that the community, if a favourite addon breaks, attempts to maintain its compatibility themselves. Look at the 2010 fix for Multistage, for example. I'm sure, if such a thing were to happen to Spacecraft, the community would again endeavour to work around it. As Ripley said, there is already a Spacecraft -> compiled DLL converter.

 

[Donamy]

In the past, it's been shown that the community, if a favourite addon breaks, attempts to maintain its compatibility themselves. Look at the 2010 fix for Multistage, for example. I'm sure, if such a thing were to happen to Spacecraft, the community would again endeavour to work around it. As Ripley said, there is already a Spacecraft -> compiled DLL converter.

I'm grateful for Artlav's converter, and if it keeps SC3 useful, great.

 

[Cras]

The community has also seemingly been to willing to kick developers to the curb too.

The community and Orbiter should hold the developers in a high regard. Without them Orbiter is a fraction of its potential. And they do this for nothing more than the love of the sim. It is not too much to ask that SC3 compatibility be maintained in the future.

 

[4throck]

Completely agree. Regarding giving the sources to the community, any SC3 add-on IS the sources.

Never understood why some people only like add-ons made with certain tools or languages.
I guess that it might have something to do with preventing others from improving or studying from their work. Another possibility is trying to force a dependence on add-on X or Y for certain special features.
In short, fan-boy or childish behavior.Whatever...


The future of Orbiter is what we make of it. If I share my work with others, it's because I feel like it.
I work with sc3 because it does what I need. Things like VCs and such.

If the next version doesn't support it, I'll keep using the current one. Others will do the same, at least the ones that share similar interests with me.


To finish, I'd like to point out that there's something called Lua scripting included in orbiter. As far as I know, it can do amazing stuff and replace SC3. It also works out of config/text files, just like sc3. Nevertheless it is very undocumented and there are no good examples of it, as far as I know... :hmm: