Petition to have Microsoft keep the FSX going.

[T.Neo]

-Give up and head over to Orbiter

Anyone considering collaborating on an Orbiter flight sim expansion pack?

 

[Moonwalker]

Orbiter and MSFS are two totally different simulations

And MSFS is not just a flight simulator. It's the best platform available to get highly realistical simulations of Boeing, Airbus, and other cockpit systems and avionics. Also, the graphical environment and the kind of addon sceneries are by far unbeaten. Even X-Plane is far away to become something like MSFS if we talk about airplane simulation and number of available addon sceneries (and it has no ATC, just an annoying simple infinite voice loop).

Orbiter never will become something like MSFS (less than ever a replacement, it is even rather unknown in the X-plane and MSFS flight sim communities), nor can it be compared at all.

 

[T.Neo]

Maybe I'm not aiming for something like MSFS.
Just a more accurate flight simulation in Orbiter.

EDIT:
Then again, look at the progress MSFS made thoughout it's life.
Maybe such an expansion pack could evolve into much more...

 

[Moonwalker]

Maybe I'm not aiming for something like MSFS.
Just a more accurate flight simulation in Orbiter.

EDIT:
Then again, look at the progress MSFS made thoughout it's life.
Maybe such an expansion pack could evolve into much more...

An expansion pack for Orbiter would be nice. But I personally would like to see more detailed systems stuff first. Orbiter is nice if we talk about good looking flying 3D models of some spacecraft. But it gets boring rather quickly for those who love the detailed hardcore stuff of manned space flight: controlling systems and follow real procedures in a huge detail. From that point of view, beside Project Apollo - NASSP I have no real hope for Orbiter anymore

 

[Urwumpe]

But it gets boring rather quickly for those who love the detailed hardcore stuff of manned space flight: controlling systems and follow real procedures in a huge detail. From that point of view, beside Project Apollo - NASSP I have no real hope for Orbiter anymore

*cough* SSU *cough* :rofl:

Also, you have Project Mercury, and I see only little reason not applying the same treatment to Project Gemini.

 

[T.Neo]

An expansion pack for Orbiter would be nice. But I personally would like to see more detailed systems stuff first. Orbiter is nice if we talk about good looking flying 3D models of some spacecraft. But it gets boring rather quickly for those who love the detailed hardcore stuff of manned space flight: controlling systems and follow real procedures in a huge detail. From that point of view, beside Project Apollo - NASSP I have no real hope for Orbiter anymore

True, I agree wholeheartedly about comprehensive systems.
Wouldn't implementing systems for Airbus be easy, since they all posess a common cockpit?

 

[Pilot7893]

I really ought to try that Vehicle sim beta now. Just waiting for Dad to get home (admin privilages)

 

[Moonwalker]

Wouldn't implementing systems for Airbus be easy, since they all posess a common cockpit?

Such systems simulations are basically done be companies. I doubt we would ever see such freeware simulations, less than ever for Orbiter. Orbiter is good for space flight, but lacks on atmospheric flight, required to make it a good flight simulator.

 

[T.Neo]

Such systems simulations are basically done be companies. I doubt we would ever see such freeware simulations, less than ever for Orbiter.

Why is it impossible to get the complexity of NASSP into an aircraft?

Orbiter is good for space flight, but lacks on atmospheric flight, required to make it a good flight simulator.

Hence the expansion pack.

 

[Urwumpe]

Such systems simulations are basically done be companies. I doubt we would ever see such freeware simulations, less than ever for Orbiter. Orbiter is good for space flight, but lacks on atmospheric flight, required to make it a good flight simulator.

I remember some old experiments with improved aerodynamics and the newest aerodynamic API of Orbiter allows quite a lot.

Simulating subsonic vehicles is one of the simplest tasks possible with it. And the atmospheric model of Orbiter is in some terms even better than that of the last FS version I played, it just lacks weather.

Also, the subsystem simulation is also not really tough. The manuals for the A320 are around in the decentralized backup sites, the basics of aircraft instrumentation is public knowledge. And honestly: Even a simple Java applet can simulate a jet engine better as FS2000 - and I have not heard FSX does better.

The problem you see, has just a different nature: Orbiter has a general-purpose API, MSFS a specialized, historically grown API for simulating planes which do not stress the definition of an aircraft too much.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

And the atmospheric model of Orbiter [...] just lacks weather.

Watch out Urwumpe: adding weather to Orbiter might cause a climate change in Orbiter's earth atmosphere.... At least we would know what (who!) caused this change

 

[Urwumpe]

Watch out Urwumpe: adding weather to Orbiter might cause a climate change in Orbiter's earth atmosphere.... At least we would know what (who!) caused this change

Yeah. And if you don't like a global warming of 2.5° over 100 years, you file just a bug report. :rofl:

 

[T.Neo]

Yeah. And if you don't like a global warming of 2.5° over 100 years, you file just a bug report. :rofl:

Ha ha. :rofl:

EDIT:
Atmospheric Expansion Pack for Orbiter, thread here:
http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6880

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

Yeah. And if you don't like a global warming of 2.5° over 100 years, you file just a bug report. :rofl:

Do you realize that we just found the answer to all problems in the world?!

1. Add weather to Orbiter. (yes, it's as simple as that!)
2. Run Orbiter & keep sitting on the Earth's surface. Log temperature.
3. Timewrap for a few hundreds of years.
4. There you are! Watch how climate will change. Watch how temperature will go up and down in all this time!

5. Don't forget to send the log file with this important evidende to the IPCC and the globalwarming 2.0 thread...

 

[T.Neo]

:rofl:

Brilliant plan, Scrooge McDuck!

 

[Moonwalker]

I don't know the last FS version you used Urwumpe, but Orbiter feels just terribly static in atmospheric flight compared to what X-Plane and MSFS 2004 and X offer.

I do not say that Orbiter could not become something like MSFS or X-Plane. But it is highly unlikely that somebody would try to catch up comparable graphics and atmosphere for free, while there is X-Plane and FS available already. If it is as simple as that, just do it ... ... ...

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't know the last FS version you used Urwumpe, but Orbiter feels just terribly static in atmospheric flight compared to what X-Plane and MSFS 2004 and X offer.

Regarding the engine, the latest I used often in the last months was CFS2 (which uses the same engine as MSFS2002). Which is OK, as it even models dynamic aerodynamics. But it is nothing which is impossible for Orbiter - you could implement these in the lift functions.

But compared to IL-2 (Complete Edition), which I grabbed this week and which currently is my favorite nighttime activity, the flight dynamics in CFS2 are lacking character.

I do not say that Orbiter could not become something like MSFS or X-Plane. But it is highly unlikely that somebody would try to catch up comparable graphics and atmosphere for free, while there is X-Plane and FS available already. If it is as simple as that, just do it ... ... ...

Well, never say never. If there is no new FS, we could catch up. Also, as I remember from Flanker 2.0: Good graphics are not needed, if the simulation absorbs you.

Also, we could do stuff, which MSFS will never do right. Supersonic flight in MSFS seems still to be flawed, for example.

I still want to make a good simulation of the US coast guard in Orbiter... And I am sure, it is possible.

 

[T.Neo]

I still want to make a good simulation of the US coast guard in Orbiter... And I am sure, it is possible.

Need... real.. water...

 

[Urwumpe]

Need... real.. water...

In 300 ft altitude, water looks pretty flat.

 

[T.Neo]

In 300 ft altitude, water looks pretty flat.

Last time I checked, ships don't fly at 300ft altitude.