General Question Will Orbiter be Open Source?

[MeDiCS]

Just out of curiosity, is Martin planning to release the Source, and maybe open-sourcing it? If it's not, why? There seems to be a lot of talented coders here that could help with the project.

 

[Urwumpe]

Just out of curiosity, is Martin planning to release the Source, and maybe open-sourcing it? If it's not, why? There seems to be a lot of talented coders here that could help with the project.

See here: http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=8091

And see why you won't see it open source and why your argumentation is not according to the reality.

 

[MeDiCS]

Sorry, it was a dumb question ^^'

 

[RisingFury]

If only I had a dime for every time someone didn't use the search function on forums...

 

[MeDiCS]

The funny thing is that I did use it with the keywords "Open Source", but it didn't show anything related to my question...

 

[RisingFury]

About 10 seconds of searching finds this:
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=8091&highlight=Open+Source

 

[SPASE_1976]

Sorry, it was a dumb question ^^'

no it isn't because i have the same question myself

orbiter development would be much faster and more impressive with lots of coders, see how many addons exist , people want to contribute

You know i never saw Martin's opinion about this issue

A Possible explanation : he started orbiter as closed y open it now ?
The opening of the OVP showed that he can't (or don't want to) do much more on the visualisation part of orbiter
now we all are turned to artlav hoping .. and wishing ..

 

[Urwumpe]

orbiter development would be much faster and more impressive with lots of coders, see how many addons exist , people want to contribute

Shut up and contribute!

We have about 20 bigger add-on projects, which are open-source or looking for collaborators, but guess what: Only those few people who are contributing already help in such projects and have to be shared by the many add-ons.

Instead of getting a small bit of help on "just some add-ons", we have, in my horrible opinion, far too many armchair open-source apostles, who actually just want the Orbiter engine code for looking at it once and then leave it, when they find out that it means serious work to make useful additions, because the core engine is already good.

Where are the collaborators helping in making improvements for OVP and maybe make useful suggestions for improving the API, for example to allow the graphic engines to use more modern SFX? They are also not there.

As long as only a small hard core of add-on developers collaborate on open-source projects, there is absolutely no reason to go open-source at all. Not even for add-ons.

 

[RisingFury]

no it isn't because i have the same question myself

orbiter development would be much faster and more impressive with lots of coders, see how many addons exist , people want to contribute

I disagree.

I think the development would be run into the ground very fast because accurate Physics would be come secondary, but better graphics and more features would take up most time.

Besides, I don't think there's anyone else qualified to develop the Physics engine...

 

[SPASE_1976]

We have about 20 bigger add-on projects, which are open-source or looking for collaborators, but guess what: Only those few people who are contributing already help in such projects and have to be shared by the many add-ons.
.

everyone has his own ideas about addons , they want to create their addons
not other ppl's addons
all through many addons are based or improving other addons , isnt that a collaboration ?

we have, in my horrible opinion, far too many armchair open-source apostles, who actually just want the Orbiter engine code for looking at it once and then leave it, when they find out that it means serious work to make useful additions,

so you doubt that there is anyone out there who could help
well hope dies last

because the core engine is already good.

its not , i make an reentry facing backwards and everything goes well
atmospheric model has NOT high standards its a basic simulation , just use a good flight sim and notice the difference

Where are the collaborators helping in making improvements for OVP and maybe make useful suggestions for improving the API, for example to allow the graphic engines to use more modern SFX? They are also not there.

artlav is one

As long as only a small hard core of add-on developers collaborate on open-source projects, there is absolutely no reason to go open-source at all. Not even for add-ons.

and what do you gain by a closed software ?
any benefits ?

 

[Urwumpe]

its not , i make an reentry facing backwards and everything goes well
atmospheric model has NOT high standards its a basic simulation , just use a good flight sim and notice the difference

Sorry, but you just showed that you have not even bothered learning about what exists before talking about how to improve it.

Orbiter is not a flight simulator and does not use the assumptions of flight simulators like FSX. It does not assume a aircraft shape and does not limit itself to the aerodynamic models of generic aircraft shapes.

If you can reenter backwards without experiencing problems (and also, which problems do you expect?), this is not a problem of Orbiter's physics core, but a problem of the vessel add-on being not accurate enough in describing the properties of the spacecraft.

and what do you gain by a closed software ?
any benefits ?

It gave me a good working free spaceflight simulator, and many many add-ons, which are also not always open-source, but of high quality. Or do you want to claim that the XR-Series, Shuttle Fleet, OrbiterSound or UMMU are bad add-ons? Closed source software also gave me an operating system, which I is able to run Orbiter and many other problems, without having to check if the printing system or graphics drivers are incompatible to it.

And now don't answer with "But they could be improved as open-source software". You could be improved by stripping you of all basic rights and freedom and drill you into a perfect mindless working slave. But ask yourself, if this improvement is what you want to see of your own life. Other people have very likely different expectations on you, than you have on yourself.

And so it is with add-ons and Orbiter. What you want from orbiter, is not what Martins might want.

 

[SPASE_1976]

I disagree.

I think the development would be run into the ground very fast because accurate Physics would be come secondary, but better graphics and more features would take up most time.

Besides, I don't think there's anyone else qualified to develop the Physics engine...

no it would be faster , martin started developing orbiter many years ago and still we dont have Earth shine and we can make a reentry facing backwards


http://www.jsbsim.com/
its free , its open and we need it

 

[Hielor]

everyone has his own ideas about addons , they want to create their addons
not other ppl's addons
all through many addons are based or improving other addons , isnt that a collaboration ?

everyone has his own ideas about programs ,
they want to create their programs
not other ppl's programs
(c wut i did thar?)

so you doubt that there is anyone out there who could help
well hope dies last

The benefit would not be as great as claimed. Most people (including yourself) who want Orbiter open-sourced would not contribute anything useful.

its not , i make an reentry facing backwards and everything goes well
atmospheric model has NOT high standards its a basic simulation , just use a good flight sim and notice the difference

Really this is more an issue with the vessel, not the atmospheric model. Orbiter's atmospheric model is actually better at high altitudes than FSX's.

artlav is one

Yes, one coder. Congrats.

and what do you gain by a closed software ?
any benefits ?

This has been discussed before. You gain the benefit of not having multiple incompatible forked branches, among other things.

---------- Post added at 01:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 PM ----------

no it would be faster , martin started developing orbiter many years ago and still we dont have Earth shine and we can make a reentry facing backwards

The lack of earth shine is an issue with the graphics client, not the core. And the "reentry facing backwards" thing was already answered by Urwumpe--it's a problem with the spacecraft, not Orbiter.

http://www.jsbsim.com/
its free , its open and we need it

Why do we need it?

 

[Urwumpe]

http://www.jsbsim.com/
its free , its open and we need it

Yes, we do need it. Not.

While I really learned from daver in the Orbiter IRC, how I could write a wrapper DLL for letting Orbiter vessels use jsbsim for calculating the aerodynamics of aircraft, it does, in cold dark reality not improve anything for you.

You still need to tell it all stuff, you need to tell Orbiter for making a native Orbiter aircraft. It will not be better, just slower. And like Hielor already explained, Orbiter already has a far more accurate model of Earths upper atmosphere than all flight simulators including jsbsim. And the next version will even be far better and more accurate, from what martins leaked for keeping us on our toes.

 

[Hielor]

On that note, as I understand it, TCR_500 is planning on making a simulator similar to Orbiter. You should contact him and offer to help, and then you can be involved from the ground up, with it being open source.

 

[garyw]

no it would be faster , martin started developing orbiter many years ago and still we dont have Earth shine and we can make a reentry facing backwards


http://www.jsbsim.com/
its free , its open and we need it

When will your version be released? I look forward to testing it.

 

[SPASE_1976]

everyone has his own ideas about programs ,
they want to create their programs
not other ppl's programs
(c wut i did thar?)

no

The benefit would not be as great as claimed. Most people (including yourself) who want Orbiter open-sourced would not contribute anything useful.

hope dies last

Really this is more an issue with the vessel, not the atmospheric model. Orbiter's atmospheric model is actually better at high altitudes than FSX's.

if you say so

Yes, one coder. Congrats.

one for now

This has been discussed before. You gain the benefit of not having multiple incompatible forked branches, among other things.
The lack of earth shine is an issue with the graphics client, not the core.

what about linux users ? do we praise microsoft ?

And the "reentry facing backwards" thing was already answered by Urwumpe--it's a problem with the spacecraft, not Orbiter.

i use the standart STS that the main package includes

Why do we need it?

why flightgear needs it ? (c wut i did thar?)

---------- Post added at 08:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------

Hielor/garyw

are u a team or something ?

do you even read my posts ?

 

[garyw]

I read it. You want Orbiter to be open source but that's not possible so you found an open source program that you want to turn into orbiter.

Good luck, as I said, I look forward to trying it.

Heilor and I agree on a lot of things.

I do try to read your posts but my brain automatically skips text speak.

 

[Hielor]

no

I'll explain it then. I used your same syntax, yet changed one word to point out a flaw in your argument.

hope dies last

What? And yeah, you can hope all you want, but great projects are not built on hope.

if you say so

I do say so. There is very little effort among Orbiter vessels to make the aerodynamic performance accurate to the shape of the vessel.

what about linux users ? do we praise microsoft ?

I don't even see how that applies. Linux is a different product than Windows, it is not an open-sourced version of Windows. By that comparison, you should go write your own sim.

i use the standart STS that the main package includes

The default Atlantis is known to have absolutely terrible and unrealistic aerodynamic performance, especially in the hypersonic range.

why flightgear needs it ? (c wut i did thar?)

Flightgear uses it because they did not already have their own accurate model. As Urwumpe pointed out, using JBSim would change nothing for Orbiter.

 

[Urwumpe]

what about linux users ? do we praise microsoft ?

Actually, those who have to do the decisions and who bear the responsibility of the programs, do in fact really praise Microsoft. Not as their only role model. But out of a professional respect what Microsoft achieved and as reference for what they have to reach yet.