General Question DG IV versus XR1 DeltaGlider

[Iberville]

After a few weeks of getting the basics in Orbiter with the DeltaGlider, I want to get to serious things with either the DG IV, or any XR. But is there a difference between Dan Steph DG IV and the XR1 except that the first one has UCGO also?

 

[Moach]

the XR1 is a lot easier to operate and fly than the DGIV - it has a bunch of additional systems in comparison to the stock DG, while the DGIV has a very detailed simulation of almost every system in the ship, including a very intricate flight computer...

the XR1 has a vc, however, which the DGIV doesn't


the XR1 doesn't support UCGO - it does support UMMU tho....


my advice - get both :thumbup: - it's not like it's gonna cost you money :lol:

 

[Izack]

In a nutshell, the DG-IV is easier and more forgiving to fly thanks to complex autopilots, while the XR series is more seat-of-the-pants.

For example, in the DG-IV, you can launch, ascend to orbit, rendezvous with the ISS, approach and dock without so much as jiggling the throttle, using a series of autopilots.

The XR-1 has certain attitude autopilots (I think...I've never really used it), but nothing on the DG-IV's scale. It does, however, have much more complex systems management, such as an APU that consumes limited fuel, three separate fuel tanks as well as heat management. IE while the DG-IV can stay on-orbit without a radiator indefinitely, the XR-1 will eventually...explode or something. I've never overheated before :rofl:. But bad things happen!!

And one last thing: the XR series' voice is much less annoying. :thumbup:

EDIT: Moach's advice is best. Get both, 'cause it's free anyway. :lol:

 

[PhantomCruiser]

:ditto:
Every now and again someone will ask which is best... XR1 or DGIV.
I think the point is moot, they are both excellent craft, and miles beyond the stock DG.
In my own personal universe I've thought of the XR-1 as a test bed for the XR-2, just using the DG as an airframe.

They are both fun to fly, have their own 'personalities' so-to-speak, and are worth having in your inventory of craft available.

 

[N_Molson]

I prefer the DGIV. I don't know why ! I like the life support management, and also I feel familiar with the instruments location. Also, I can attach it to my DG-boosters :lol: Which is not possible with XR1/XR2 (landing gear problem).

For me, the main problem with the XR series is compatibility problems. I often get crashes when used with other add-ons. I've read somewhere that's because the code is handled a different way. I tried to use a suborbital version of the XR2 in one of my "persistent" scenarios, but I got a crash after some time. After the XR2 removal, everything was working again :huh:

That being said, if I had to vote for the better-looking ship in Orbiter, that would be the XR2 of course. It's somewhere between a F22, a Space Shuttle and a SR-71 ! The ability to customize the flight parameters is a huge pro, too.

 

[River Crab]

If you're asking "which is better," there's no answer. As has been said, they are both excellent craft with their own personalities. And being the one who started "Spacecraft Personifications," I should know about personalities.

As for "which is best for a beginner," IMO it's the DGIV.
The autopilots make it easier to do the things you're focusing on, and you can watch the autopilots to learn how to fly in the first place (which is what I did). The DGIV auto docking is especially beautiful to watch. Don't worry about forgetting the codes because you can look them up in the checklist any time.
Also, it's harder to manage another set SCRAM engines and the APU in the XR1. A simple press of backspace is much easier. However you must try the XR1 as well. It's just as refined, and everyone loves the voice.

Happy orbiting! :hello:

---------- Post added at 18:16 ---------- Previous post was at 18:13 ----------

Oh yeah, and the XR2 Ravenstar has the most personality of any Orbiter spacecraft IMO, but she's more advanced. Try and see, and if you fail, then get better. You'll learn to love her. :thumbup:

---------- Post added at 18:24 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------

@Izack: if you overheat the XR vessels, the computer will fail and you lose power and instruments. I don't know if you lose control, since I was just waiting for my launch window at time accel and forgot to turn on external cooling. :lol:

 

[dbeachy1]

For me, the main problem with the XR series is compatibility problems. I often get crashes when used with other add-ons. I've read somewhere that's because the code is handled a different way. I tried to use a suborbital version of the XR2 in one of my "persistent" scenarios, but I got a crash after some time. After the XR2 removal, everything was working again :huh:

To shed more light on this, the problem is not "how the XRs are coded", the problem is that any memory-overwrite bugs in other loaded add-ons will cause your Orbiter process to CTD sooner if some other add-on (in this case, an XR vessel) is using any of the memory that was corrupted by the buggy add-on(s). To sum up, it's not the XR's fault: I can't fix bugs in another add-on's code. If there really were memory bugs in the XR codebase the eight-XR-vessel torture test that I run under the debugger with debugger memory checking enabled would show it up. For detailed information, please see this post.

EDIT:
If any of you are getting CTDs on Orbiter startup with your XR scenarios, please re-test using the new XR2 1.1c and/or XR5 1.3c versions: they include an important bugfix that may help. :tiphat:

 

[Usquanigo]

The differences are pretty well laid out here, however, I'm not convinced that the DG-IV is any more "complex", nor any better of a ship simulation. If you think about it, every year computers become more and more embedded, and as a result they "disappear" from our perception - translation, things are automated and we just don't have to worry about it any more.

Think of it this way, if the year is 1910, and someone had a "simulator" for automobiles, and in 1, you had to hand crank it to start it, fiddle with the mixture, and double-clutch shift it, but in the other, you just either turned a key or pressed a button, used a pedal for throttle, another for brake, and didn't shift at all.... people would be saying the second one was less "realistic".

So I'd say the XR-1 is even actually more of a simulation of a ship from that projected hypothetical time.

Also, XR-1 FTW for 1 reason - VC. End of. :thumbup:

That said, I'm NOT dissing the DG-IV, it's very good in it's own right too. All just a matter of what you're looking for.

 

[Moach]

i kinda agree with that

although the OMG-complex flight computers are really cool and makes us feel smart to know how to use them, the way things develop, future computers should really not be such ways...

i mean, c'mon, we got cellphones in our pockets that can display rich 3D applications and boast interfaces peppered with animations and all assortment of general eye-candy... why on this good earth would a multi-billion-dollar spacecraft have a computer that accepts only commandline input:rofl: (as cool as that may be for us geeks)


i mean, i understand the concept of practicality... why waste months of development on suggar-coated interface design for a flight computer.... but i guess futuristic flight computers can be considered realistic if they simply go mostly unnoticed by the pilot :hmm:


which brings another good point... a ship as futuristic as the XR1, would most likely feature a full glass-cockpit with most displays being digital (except maybe a handful of backup gauges).... those round engine gauges are indeed a bit "retro"




but anyways - both are awesome ships! i wish i could merge them into one, so i wouldn't even have to choose at all :hmm:
or maybe if there was an addon being made, of a more near-future DG-like craft, kinda like that StarLiner thing (who's developing that again?) :lol:



i need sleep...

 

[Usquanigo]

I think you misunderstood me.

I was saying what you said - complicated, cryptic command line computer (DG-IV) is right out of the 70s. The XR-1's APs and overall systems are the more plausible projection.

And dials or not, ANY virtual pit trumps a lack of it, any day of the week. This IS supposed to be a "simulation" afterall, right?

But, for the record, give me the Fulcrum/Flanker style pit over pure glass only every time. Too much to go wrong with glass only.

 

[Moach]

:hesaid: word!

i had considered the possibility of touchscreens for my G42, but then i figured it was not only not quite as fun as good clicky swicthes, it was kind of a hazard :hmm:... what if you'd accidentally hit the "blow everything up" switch? there's no tactile feedback, so you wouldn't know untill -boom-

 

[HAL9001]

yes the first one has UCGO, too but it's much smaller.

I like the DGIV more, his autopilots are easyer and better and it is compleatly better to handel.

 

[statickid]

I think you misunderstood me.

I was saying what you said - complicated, cryptic command line computer (DG-IV) is right out of the 70s. The XR-1's APs and overall systems are the more plausible projection.

And dials or not, ANY virtual pit trumps a lack of it, any day of the week. This IS supposed to be a "simulation" afterall, right?

But, for the record, give me the Fulcrum/Flanker style pit over pure glass only every time. Too much to go wrong with glass only.

I think the command lines are realistic, but it is a matter of taste. The space shuttles launch flight computer controller program is like, 8k or something stupid small like that because it works. The reason that space crafts have all the toggles and buttons instead of sleek touch screen user interfaces is not because they couldn't have them now, its because the more rock solid the system is the more 99% reliable it will be. There is no operating system or menus to flip through. all commands are instantaneous. There can't be problems with the connection from the screen to the cpu etc etc. "Auuugh my touch screen is frozen!!" I'm not saying that these things can operate reliably, but there are more things that can go wrong that can't go wrong with a switch.

I think the command lines in the DGIV are realistic and not "cryptic" because someone trained to operate a DGIV would just memorize what they are. They are short, small, and easy to remember. Its like the computer equivalent of a toggle switch. It's a little awkward inputting text into the computer with the mouse, but imagine if you were in a real dg-iv cockpit. That little numeric keypad would be lightning fast to input commands into. you could probably run autopilot programs without even looking at it in about the same amount of time it would take to look down from the hud at some kind of touch screen and flip through a menu and engage some kind of virtual button.

 

[Izack]

But, for the record, give me the Fulcrum/Flanker style pit over pure glass only every time. Too much to go wrong with glass only.

Eh? Eh?

 

[Usquanigo]

I think the command lines are realistic, but it is a matter of taste. The space shuttles launch flight computer controller program is like, 8k or something stupid small like that because it works. The reason that space crafts have all the toggles and buttons instead of sleek touch screen user interfaces is not because they couldn't have them now, its because the more rock solid the system is the more 99% reliable it will be. There is no operating system or menus to flip through. all commands are instantaneous. There can't be problems with the connection from the screen to the cpu etc etc. "Auuugh my touch screen is frozen!!" I'm not saying that these things can operate reliably, but there are more things that can go wrong that can't go wrong with a switch.

I think the command lines in the DGIV are realistic and not "cryptic" because someone trained to operate a DGIV would just memorize what they are. They are short, small, and easy to remember. Its like the computer equivalent of a toggle switch. It's a little awkward inputting text into the computer with the mouse, but imagine if you were in a real dg-iv cockpit. That little numeric keypad would be lightning fast to input commands into. you could probably run autopilot programs without even looking at it in about the same amount of time it would take to look down from the hud at some kind of touch screen and flip through a menu and engage some kind of virtual button.

The Space Shuttle was designed in the 70s. That's why it has the sorts of computers it does. Sure, there were upgrades, but they weren't going to completely rip everything out and jam brand new tech in there then have to design all new interfaces for all the systems to make everything work. It would just be far too expensive.

However, the AGC worked to get us to the Moon and back. Why not use that in the Space Shuttle too?

Rhetorical question, the point is to demonstrate that the technology used in the cockpit of something is going to be based on what was around when it was designed. Something designed in the future will not use command lines when you don't need to. There MIGHT be something like that as a backup, but after a certain point, things are reliable enough to not even need it.

Simply select the AP screen from your custom MFD, engage it, then enter inputs to adjust the pitch and bank angle you want while controlling thrust separately.

Or - have a 1 button launch to orbit AP, something like that would be completely monitored from the ground, and either triggered from the ground, or leave the pilot with 1 button to push.

The XR-1 does it better (when you consider the timeline especially). The command line might not be out of the 70s, but it's certainly out of the 80s.

---------- Post added at 11:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 AM ----------

Eh? Eh?

Heh, more like -

 

[Xyon]

Hmm. I don't think you're on the right lines here.

The Space Shuttle was designed in the 70s. That's why it has the sorts of computers it does. Sure, there were upgrades, but they weren't going to completely rip everything out and jam brand new tech in there then have to design all new interfaces for all the systems to make everything work. It would just be far too expensive.

Not quite. There was an article on the Shuttles' computers around here quite recently; They're designed for durability, and scalable only to the minimum needed for operation. Yes they're old, but they still work, which was the whole point. They're also well-rigged to cope with the vibrations the shuttle goes through on her way to orbit, and the radiation she experiences on the job once she's up there.

I can't find the article I was referencing, though the one I'm linking to is similar. For instance, the shuttle crews take laptops with them to supplement and assist the Shuttle's onboard computers. Within the scope of a mission to the ISS, they can expect to replace the memory five times or so. And the laptops themselves need some serious beefing up and securing to make sure they even survive the thrashing they get on the way up.

http://astroblog.cosmobc.com/2010/0...ace-shuttle-runs-on-only-one-megabyte-of-ram/

Also, there's nothing antiquated or outdated about a command line. I run a linux distro on my server with just a command line interface, because everything I need is terminal only anyway, meaning that a GUI would be totally wasted resources.

 

[Usquanigo]

Hmm. I don't think you're on the right lines here.



Not quite. There was an article on the Shuttles' computers around here quite recently; They're designed for durability, and scalable only to the minimum needed for operation. Yes they're old, but they still work, which was the whole point.
http://astroblog.cosmobc.com/2010/0...ace-shuttle-runs-on-only-one-megabyte-of-ram/

Also, there's nothing antiquated or outdated about a command line. I run a linux distro on my server with just a command line interface, because everything I need is terminal only anyway, meaning that a GUI would be totally wasted resources.

Like I said - it worked, why spend (waste) the money to change something in use when you don't have to?

Starting fresh you will use what is available then. Which is why the STS uses a totally different system than the Apollo program did (as opposed to a sufficiently modified version of the AGC).

And yes, I was actually going to add something to the end of that comment, but I removed it for fear of treading upon the extreme sensitivities around here - but you demonstrated the point it would have made - that the other reason it's there (in the DG IV), and so well liked, is because it lets linux geeks type some shortened commands and feel more special.

GUIs don't cost any resources that matter these days. It's just a fact. (not that they don't use resources, just that in this modern age, the amount they use vs what's available makes it utterly insignificant - even on resource limited devices... y'know.... like phones)

 

[orbitingpluto]

Just to add my two cents to what derailed this topic: I read the shuttles flight computers were based off of what was being used in USAF jets at the time. More off the shelf than a fresh start IMHO.

On-topic: I like the DGIV more. Its the autopilots. Its comforting to have them. With the DGIV I can have the it take itself to orbit and not worry about anything but how few degrees I will be off. It can also bring itself back down safely too.

Also the XR1 can't carry any cargo. They seat the same number of people but the DGIV has cargo room.

 

[Xyon]

that the other reason it's there (in the DG IV), and so well liked, is because it lets linux geeks type some shortened commands and feel more special.

Um... the DGIV's command interface doesn't really do that. I'm not exactly a "linux geek" per se, as mentioned I run a CLE instance of Debian for a specific purpose because that's all it needs. For me at least it's not about typing commands because it makes me feel "special", it's about the best tool for the job, and I consider the setup I run to be just that. As for the DGIV's computer, well, I've never felt special punching commands into it, and in fact, I'm not overly fond of it at all, but that's personal opinion, I suppose.

GUIs don't cost any resources that matter these days. It's just a fact. (not that they don't use resources, just that in this modern age, the amount they use vs what's available makes it utterly insignificant - even on resource limited devices... y'know.... like phones)

Yes, they do. A GUI requires an entirely different approach to rendering the interface than does a command-line environment. I'll concede that a bare-bones approach, something like fluxbox, doesn't weigh much, and that's because it was designed to. Don't believe me? Try putting a fully-featured GNOME desktop on an older box with little by way of graphics hardware. Or better yet, put Windows 7 on it, and revel in the glory of Aero rendered at about 2 FPS.

You cite phones as resource limited devices, and of course they are, but that's not at least the only reason they come with GUIs on them. GUIs are easier to use, and thanks to the popularity of Windows, they're commonplace, so people expect to see them. But even more critically than that, even on those handsets with a little QWERTY keyboard built in, phones are not the easiest devices in the world to type on. That's not so much of an issue when all you type into it is an SMS or an email, but when the OS on it is totally typed-command driven, that's going to be a problem.

 

[Ghostrider]

There's a good reason the DGIV's SpaceTech computer uses a command line: you can write new programs for it. Besides, if you need a program at the touch of the button, there are shortcuts.