Is Orbiter dying a slow death ???

[MaverickSawyer]

And hey, X-mas break is coming. I'm sure there are a few things in the pipe.

All :hail: Christmas! :lol:
One can only hope!

 

[Mandella]

Orbiter is a niche community of spaceflight hobbyists. Nothing wrong with that, but how many of us are there, really? Certainly not in the same number as in flight sims, but probably more than in train sims. :lol:

But that said, we need somewhere to be, and Orbiter is it (and has certainly served my space bug very, very well for this past decade). Until there is a real alternative, we're going to stay here, as long as we have the urge to "Play in Space."

I do think Orbiter got a bit less noob friendly after Windows 7. The poor performance under what has become the standard modern operating system provides an entry barrier over and beyond the complexities of spaceflight. A finished, stable, backwards compatible external client would really help a lot here, and fortunately development in that area seems to be moving ahead steadily. :thumbup:

 

[rodion_herrera]

Then on the other hand we have things like Moonbase Alpha which is a valiant effort and wonderfully detailed work. However, HOWEVER, I believe it is for the wrong game. A MoonBase Alpha add-on would best be done in an FPS with an engine like from DOOM or Quake. Or something similar. Orbiter is designed to model spaceflight, just as X-plane is designed to model atmospheric flight. Neither is coded to walk through bases or terminals. Get my drift?

I beg to differ. In the days of FS98-FS2004, I was an addon maker for MSFS, and most of my addon work there involved scenery and airports. Like flightsims, Orbiter shouldn't only have addons that focus on spacecraft--there should also be addons that focus on scenery/terrain. This is why when you go to FS freeware addon sites, you get sections like "Aircraft", then "Panels", then "Scenery", then "Utilities" etc.

The reason why scenery development is important, even though it doesn't involve much coding (although if one wanted a really good interactive base/landing area, you might need to code it)--it allows the less-"Dr. Rendezvous" among us to enjoy the sim from a more casual perspective, and actually get "visually rewarded" for arriving at some destination. I understand that perhaps a portion of the Orbiter crowd are "hardcore" users who stand by a kind of "It's the journey, not the destination, that matters" mantra, but in order for Orbiter to be "attractive" to the general public (and thus gain or preserve a good following), you really need destinations/locations that really look appealing, to serve the taste of the current generation. I also understand that perhaps, in the eyes of those who really focus on coding wonderful, accurate, and complex spacecraft and systems, we who design scenery, meshes, or textures are more "rear-echelon" or "second-class" addon developers. That is okay, I do agree that Orbiter is about spacecraft and orbital mechanics, but I still disagree that it ONLY has to be about that. There is a saying that goes (although I'm not yet sure if it can be applied in this situation LOL) "One man's junk is another man's treasure."

If scenery wasn't important, then KSC shouldn't have been upgraded several times in the last few cycle releases of Orbiter. But I believe Martin knows the importance of having a nice KSC, because this is appealing to the casual or Orbiter-curious crowd. Because of this, I think it's healthy for some addon makers to focus specifically on scenery and bases, because it is an important aspect of the sim, if only to attract new users and keep it "alive". Like some people here, I personally don't see Orbiter as in the "dying" state--as long as someone sees an aspect of Orbiter that is "lacking" in some form of accuracy, detail, or just plain aesthetics, then someone is bound to make an addon. People tend to forget that the core reason why some people build addons is because they make it FOR THEMSELVES, because they weren't satisfied with that they saw or experienced.

-RODION

 

[boogabooga]

I'd like to reinforce two points already explicit or implicit in the earlier comments:

1. Orbiter is not the same as NASA. NASA's political/funding/planning problems don't mean anything to Orbiter. We can be pessimistic or optimistic about the prospects for NASA or any of the world's other space agencies and commercial enterprises to advance the state of the art and REALLY fly. And then we can turn to Orbiter and perform our own simulated feats of engineering and imagination.

Has anyone stopped to think that at this moment, we have satellites/probes around or on their way to Mercury, Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Vesta, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto. Has there ever been this much activity at one time before?

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Has anyone stopped to think that at this moment, we have satellites/probes around or on their way to Mercury, Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Vesta, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto. Has there ever been this much activity at one time before?

Indeed. I feel that Orbiter needs more unmanned addons and missions.
:2cents:

 

[4throck]

Just my 2 cents:

- There's an unnecessary negative reaction to simple addons. This puts most people off development, even as simple as converting a mesh and configuring it as sc3 vessel. This attitude prevents the creation of new add-ons for which there are publicly avaliable meshes and that could be updated in time to proper .dll versions.

- The feedback on most treads to beginner ideas or suggestions about add-ons is negative, along the lines of : "we don't need another rocket" or "code it yourself". A better approach would be to contribute to that thread and using it for research (masses, fuel, aerodynamics, sequences, etc, etc).

- Orbiter lacks collision support, and that limits the complete simulation to interplanetary flight. Landings, EVA and VC all suffer from not having a FPS engine. But the best solution would be to use another simulator and NOT try to force Orbiter to do what it wasn't designed to. In short, Orbiter will land the LEM on the Moon, but to drive the lunar rover... I've seen a better simulation on-line using the GoogleEarth API (also free).

So Orbiter is not dead, it simple has returned to what it does best, interplanetary flight simulation. :thumbup:That's why you see a decline in experimental add-ons but a rise in few good, well designed spacecraft and instrument add-ons.

 

[Pipcard]

We don't need a ton of vessel add-ons coming out every month. I like my XR2 and Arrow.

 

[mojoey]

It also allows us to live our dreams. Some of the community is aging...(im pretty sure Tex is like 5,000 years old)and we cant actually go into space IRL.

 

[george7378]

I don't think I have played Orbiter for nearly half a year now - not because it is boring or bad in any way - it's just because I don't have the motivation to sit down and do a proper mission. I will maybe decide to fly to the ISS just because I fancy it, and then I will end up launching and using time acceleration to catch up with it, and then after a bit of thruster firing, I will dock, and then that's it - I will come home after sitting there for a couple of minutes because I have nothing to do now I'm there!

I still love space and astronomy like I always have, but I don't really find Orbiter fun anymore after a couple of years of playing it at an amateur level.

 

[Pipcard]

I don't think I have played Orbiter for nearly half a year now - not because it is boring or bad in any way - it's just because I don't have the motivation to sit down and do a proper mission. I will maybe decide to fly to the ISS just because I fancy it, and then I will end up launching and using time acceleration to catch up with it, and then after a bit of thruster firing, I will dock, and then that's it - I will come home after sitting there for a couple of minutes because I have nothing to do now I'm there!

I still love space and astronomy like I always have, but I don't really find Orbiter fun anymore after a couple of years of playing it at an amateur level.

For me, I will probably find that an interplanetary mission is always an epic voyage.

 

[streb2001]

... and then that's it - I will come home after sitting there for a couple of minutes because I have nothing to do now I'm there

Same applies to any flight sim, surely?

 

[rodion_herrera]

- Orbiter lacks collision support, and that limits the complete simulation to interplanetary flight. Landings, EVA and VC all suffer from not having a FPS engine. But the best solution would be to use another simulator and NOT try to force Orbiter to do what it wasn't designed to. In short, Orbiter will land the LEM on the Moon, but to drive the lunar rover... I've seen a better simulation on-line using the GoogleEarth API (also free).

I don't see this as a "limiting" factor. Certainly there were moments in the history of an application or product, wherein people kept using it for purposes other than that which it was designed to, and this led to a product, a new branch that evolved from the parent branch. Now I know the possibility of this happening in a closed-source sim like Orbiter will be slim or perhaps even nil. But the thought gives good encouragement to those who perhaps think in this mode.

Furthermore, remarks like this make meshers like me a bit discouraged from creating meshes for orbiter anymore--it's like what I said earlier--since all we (meshers, 3D modelers, texture artists) an do is mesh/texture and not code, remarks like this make us feel like "second class" addon makers, and perhaps this could be the reason why it took me a long time to get back into addon making--the bias still seems to be here, and it's not a very encouraging thought. And saying "Well, learn how to code!" is simply not an encouraging phrase either.

-RODION

 

[george7378]

Same applies to any flight sim, surely?

Yeah, that's pretty much right. I used to play flightsim 2004 every night, but now I find that I am just following the same old routines every flight I do, and I don't really find it fun any more. Flying a perfect ILS approach with charts, into my favourite airport, was rewarding for a while, but now I find it rather boring because esentially the same thing happens every time - I will use the checklist to power up the aircraft, I will take off and hand it over to the autopilot for most of the flight, then I will dial some numbers into the autopilot and take over manually about 50ft from the runway when I am landing, and pull back on the stick to touch down. Then I will taxi to the gate, and press exit without having really achieved anything new or rewarding.

I'm quite an obsessive person so I try and do it perfectly every time, and I quite often end up annoyed because I messed up the landing, or because I didn't follow the procedures properly. I think that's another reason why I am becoming less and less interested in simulations - I am not always good at them, and I can't always be bothered to sit down and get better (well that's probably because of all the real life commitments I have at the moment, but even in my free time I would rather just sit down and watch a film or read a book than do another flight in orbiter/flightsim).

Anyway, I'm not really the target audience of complicated simulation programs anyway - being 17 years old, I should probably be playing CoD or something (not meaning to offend the other young orbinauts on here!) so it is no wonder that I don't really have the attention span to commit to all the planning and knowledge that doing a perfect flight in Orbiter needs.

It was fun when I started, and it might be fun again in the future, but I am certainly at a low point now in my interest. Maybe it will pick up when I get settled into university next year (I am going to study physics/astrophysics - inspired mainly by my first encounters with Orbiter ) and I also have Orbiter to thank for my interest in space and astronomy, and my wish to work in the field later in life.

 

[Screamer7]

Can't people realize that XR2 repaints =/= Orbiter is dying? Are people here making an attack on those who make such skins? Not everyone is a spacecraft add-on developer (modeling/programming/texturing) or has the time to learn it. And you shouldn't pressure the Orbiter community to make spacecraft add-ons.

All the repaints ans skins are a work of art. Some of them are masterpieces.
I know I complained about the endless stream of repaints. But the more I think about it, I realize that Orbiter is a free add on and many developers used there own time to made Orbiter what it is today. And above all, they are enjoying what they do. So to say that Orbiter is dead, is wrong. If we had not had all the developers that made add ons for Orbiter, then Orbiter would be dead a long time ago.
Take your time, and we must be patient.

 

[rodion_herrera]

Flying a perfect ILS approach with charts, into my favourite airport, was rewarding for a while, but now I find it rather boring because esentially the same thing happens every time - I will use the checklist to power up the aircraft, I will take off and hand it over to the autopilot for most of the flight, then I will dial some numbers into the autopilot and take over manually about 50ft from the runway when I am landing, and pull back on the stick to touch down. Then I will taxi to the gate, and press exit without having really achieved anything new or rewarding.

Do you:

a) Fly using real weather? (or this baby http://realenvironmentxtreme.com/ )

b) Set instrument reliability settings to mid or low?

c) Fly online via VATSIM with "live" ATC?

Any or all of the above can guarantee that you will not utter "the same thing happens every time" ever again

-RODION

 

[george7378]

Do you:

a) Fly using real weather? (or this baby http://realenvironmentxtreme.com/ )

b) Set instrument reliability settings to mid or low?

c) Fly online via VATSIM with "live" ATC?

Any or all of the above can guarantee that you will not utter "the same thing happens every time" ever again

-RODION

a) Yep, I usually fly with real world weather.

b) I have tried lots of failure scenarios before, and it pretty much ends up in the same place - I will end up causing a terrible crash and the sim will reset itself, or I will successfully land a couple of times, and my interest will fizzle out.

c) Yes, I have 115 hours of online flying on IVAO, but you have to do all your flight realtime and I don't usually fly any further than 300 miles from my base. Also, the ATCs usually go offline halfway through the flight which sends all my planning out the window

I'm not trying to attack flightsim or Orbiter for being boring, but I can never bring myself to put in the dedication that you need if you want to use them properly, and they are simulations, so that's what they were made for. It doesn't help that I don't have my own computer either - I could probably put in a bit more time if I did.

I still remember the obsessive love I had for flightsim and Orbiter when I started using them, but now I just can't be bothered! But like I say, I could well start using them again when my life has a more definite path and I have settled down a bit! Actually, I have started winding down a lot of my online/computer life because I am under a lot of stress at the moment - I have put my website on hold because I also can't be bothered to update it any more. So yeah, I am probably not the best person to ask in this sample!

 

[streb2001]

(I am going to study physics/astrophysics - inspired mainly by my first encounters with Orbiter ) and I also have Orbiter to thank for my interest in space and astronomy, and my wish to work in the field later in life.

Don't forget to mention it in your UCAS personal statement then. Yes, OK I am a physics teacher. Just finished checking PSs for my U6 tutees. It's the interesting ones that get the offers.

I treat Orbiter like a box of chocolates or a bottle of fine whisky. The anticipation of knowing it is there to dip into occasionally when the mood takes me.

 

[george7378]

Don't forget to mention it in your UCAS personal statement then. Yes, OK I am a physics teacher. Just finished checking PSs for my U6 tutees. It's the interesting ones that get the offers.

I treat Orbiter like a box of chocolates or a bottle of fine whisky. The anticipation of knowing it is there to dip into occasionally when the mood takes me.

You know, I actually didn't have room to put it in at the end because we were told to try and fill it up with books/scientific papers that we had read, and also to fill in some of it with interests outside the academic field, so I had to take out Orbiter in the final cut Still, I certainly made sure that my tutor mentioned all the space related stuff in my reference from him, and he said that all the knowledge that I had gained from Orbiter made me a strong applicant so I definitely owe the program a lot

That's a good analogy to use - I am the type who will attack computer games obsessively until I have saturated myself, and then I will probably lose interest because I have rushed the finer points. I'm sure I will change later on, when I don't have university stuff at the front of my mind all the time!

 

[rodion_herrera]

a) Yep, I usually fly with real world weather.

b) I have tried lots of failure scenarios before, and it pretty much ends up in the same place - I will end up causing a terrible crash and the sim will reset itself, or I will successfully land a couple of times, and my interest will fizzle out.

c) Yes, I have 115 hours of online flying on IVAO, but you have to do all your flight realtime and I don't usually fly any further than 300 miles from my base. Also, the ATCs usually go offline halfway through the flight which sends all my planning out the window

I'm not trying to attack flightsim or Orbiter for being boring, but I can never bring myself to put in the dedication that you need if you want to use them properly, and they are simulations, so that's what they were made for. It doesn't help that I don't have my own computer either - I could probably put in a bit more time if I did.

I still remember the obsessive love I had for flightsim and Orbiter when I started using them, but now I just can't be bothered! But like I say, I could well start using them again when my life has a more definite path and I have settled down a bit! Actually, I have started winding down a lot of my online/computer life because I am under a lot of stress at the moment - I have put my website on hold because I also can't be bothered to update it any more. So yeah, I am probably not the best person to ask in this sample!

I too don't own my own PC, however I find that this even contributes more to how I "value" or cherish the time and opportunity I have to fly sims or develop addons--the fact that I share my time with other people in using a PC means that in the interim, my mind is planning and busy on what I will do once I get to sit down in front of a computer.

Will Wright, the famous designer of the Sims series, that started off with Simcity in the early 1990's, has this neat story about how different the gaming or simming community is nowadays, compared to say, the 80's or 90's generation. Back then, graphics were quite crude, yet when you were flying your Spitfire or Me109 in Lucasfilm's "Their Finest Hour: Battle of Britain" you don't "feel" that they are crude or simple--you really feel that you're there! Also, because perhaps of the lack of internet during those days, there's this situation/phenomenon that occurs in-between gaming/simming sessions.

For example, you finished a long mission in a game and you crashed and failed. But you're too tired to redo the mission. You then lie down on your bed, and decide to go to sleep, but at that moment, you then realize what mistakes you made during your last failed mission, and thus you plan for tomorrow's simming session, taking note of those mistakes. Wright says that during these periods, the gaming/simming actually occurs IN YOUR HEAD, not while you're sitting in front of the computer, and he believes a good game has this attribute--you will constantly THINK of the game/sim while your eating, sitting on the potty, or even courting a girl LOL

So I think if one "played" Orbiter in one's head before actually sitting down and firing up the PC/laptop, then it gives more "life" to using such a sim, because the very idea of the sim is alive in your brain, even after the computer has been shut down.

-RODION

 

[4throck]

Boring? Did you try to do an Apollo mission to a NEO asteroid? Yes it's not on the OH, but you just need to edit the scenario. A few lines will do it.
I understand repetitive but then again, a little creativity with the scenarios will keep you happy. A docking is a docking but did you try to do it with a lunar Skylab ?


Back to add-on creation, what we need is to concentrate the limited individual efforts.
OH works kind of like that, but there's indeed a bias towards add-ons. There's no incentive (on the forums) to upload meshes, sounds, etc. But those who do see their efforts rewarded (see Soyus 7K the meshes are being used).


Just one final suggestion regarding simulating real missions:

There could be a list of simulated completely / partially / basic / not avaliable spacecraft so that the community knows what exists and what doesn't. The list should be done with regard to spacecraft hardware.
As for actual missions, a similar list should also exist (for example: scenarios exist / hardware exists/ non avaliable).
Of course, this should be tied with the OH review and category system.