General Question How is Kerbal more famous than Orbiter.

[ToTheMoon]

Orbiter is a piece of software that I believe, cant be beat. (at least anytime soon) Kerbals's alright but it in no way compares to the real sense of orbiter and how it portrays our solar system not only visually, but also mathematically.

 

[Urwumpe]

Orbiter is a piece of software that I believe, cant be beat. (at least anytime soon) Kerbals's alright but it in no way compares to the real sense of orbiter and how it portrays our solar system not only visually, but also mathematically.

Thats like comparing "Lego Technic" and "fischertechnik".

 

[SolarLiner]

KSP is funny, easy to take on, and has an actual reward system (the carrer system, you complete things you can do more). Also you do the building, which is very important to the game, especially the sandbox type.
KSP is funny and adorable, with the cartoony feel and the cute kerbals, and it is fun to build up nonsense rockets and watch them blow up and explode everywhere (not so much now that the whole space center can fall in pieces).

Orbiter, on the other hand, is more turned towards the "hard simulation" part, giving you a realistic environnment and physics to play in. But, that's really all! You can go and make a set of mission to construct your own space station, or even do orbital construction with IMS, but except from making circles around planets you con't do much more in Orbiter.

 

[Artlav]

Point one: Fun.

How hard is it to get fun out of Orbiter?
How hard is it to get fun out of KSP?

How deep would you mine for fun?
How much effort would you brew it in?

Would you realise that there is fun in the depths?
Would you realise that effort amplifies the taste, to a limit?

Are you equipped to mine for deep fun, or is it out of your reach?
Are you willing to spent effort, or go for pre-fabricated mixtures?

There are a lot of people, and they have different answers.
There are a lot of answers.
Some might find you crazy doing math for fun - for them it's a scary drudgery from school.
Some might find you crazy not delving deep for the patterns of the universe - what else is there to live for?

The answers, however, group together.
Effort people are willing to spend.
Depth they are willing to dig.

In Orbiter, you WOW at the first sight, then struggle, go ballistic, crash and burn (metaphorically), and get frustrated (at the game). The fun is deep and takes some effort for good taste.

In KSP, you Whoa at the first sight, go flying, crash and burn (literally), repeat, repeat, succeed. The fun is here on the surface, with little effort needed, as well as veins deep and raw.

That's point one.

Point two: Creation.

In Orbiter you take what is given to you, with little ability to permutate. You can create, but that requires digging deep. There aren't that many things you can do or try without a lot of knowledge.

In KSP, you permutate at once, with little effort. Build your rocket, fly it, try again. There are many things to do, at many levels.

That's about all that comes to mind.


ADHD version: I still don't have a clue, but lately had more fun in KSP than in Orbiter.

 

[Mojave]

I also feel that it has to do with advertisement. Nobody advertises Orbiter anywhere. If you look at it KSP increased more in popularity after it was put on steam. Maybe if Orbiter was made more mainstream it would gather more attention.

Do something like that with Orbiter and it's sure to gain a lot more popularity among the masses.

 

[Pipcard]

I'm guessing KSP is more popular because it seems to be more accessible with it's cartoony graphics, smaller-sized planets, "click and drag" maneuver node system, Spore-like rocket creator, etc.

 

[Urwumpe]

I also feel that it has to do with advertisement. Nobody advertises Orbiter anywhere. If you look at it KSP increased more in popularity after it was put on steam. Maybe if Orbiter was made more mainstream it would gather more attention.

Do something like that with Orbiter and it's sure to gain a lot more popularity among the masses.

Well, you also have to ask yourself the question there: How much mainstream can you make Orbiter before it gets a different kind of software. You would NEVER even bother using KSP for visualization of a real spaceflight mission. KSP never even attempts to be real.

It is KSP-Verse. Regardless how much you mod it, it would always be like launching a Space Shuttle as Brickfilm. And it feels damn right that way.

Of course KSP is the more accessible and more user-friendly simulation. And there is Orbiter, before you get to STK...

 

[kamaz]

Much smaller learning curve. You can play KSP right away, for Orbiter you need to read a manual.

Plus, KSP has explosions.

 

[Artlav]

Addendum:
Famous thing =/= Good or well made thing.

 

[Urwumpe]

Addendum:
Famous thing =/= Good or well made thing.

In terms of KSP and Orbiter, a rather inappropriate addendum: Both are good and well-made in their own right.

But both are also different with different target groups.

 

[Artlav]

In terms of KSP and Orbiter, a rather inappropriate addendum: Both are good and well-made in their own right.

Certainly. The thread title was just implying that not being famous is in some way bad.

Not every good thing is necessarily famous, just like not every famous thing is necessarily good.

 

[blixel]

 

[Frilock]

Orbiter is a simulator, KSP is a game.

 

[Artlav]

[image]

Perhaps it would be better to draw attention to orbital mechanics by visualising two hyperbolic orbital arcs around an extremely close pair of moons.

 

[Donamy]

I thought they were colliding galaxies.

 

[blixel]

Perhaps it would be better to draw attention to orbital mechanics by visualising two hyperbolic orbital arcs around an extremely close pair of moons.

I wonder if I could erect a rocket and insert it into a stationary orbit between the moons. Hmm... I wonder how long it would last before it became unstable and exploded.

 

[C3PO]

Perhaps it would be better to draw attention to orbital mechanics by visualising two hyperbolic orbital arcs around an extremely close pair of moons.

That's no moon!!! oh, never mind.

 

[Matias Saibene]

I also feel that it has to do with advertisement. Nobody advertises Orbiter anywhere. If you look at it KSP increased more in popularity after it was put on steam. Maybe if Orbiter was made more mainstream it would gather more attention.

Do something like that with Orbiter and it's sure to gain a lot more popularity among the masses.

Oh, not again: Windows vs Linux, VB vs C++, etc.

I think it's mostly KSP most famous for its good amount of publicity. I found lots of KSP in Internet advertising.

Orbiter, however, has the quality of being the simulator with which you can contact the creator of the Universe: The Probe.

The new versions of Orbiter looks very promising.

 

[kamaz]

Orbiter, however, has the quality of being the simulator with which you can contact the creator of the Universe: The Probe.

And you can hail the Probe in-game!
Or worship at the altar of the Probe in-game!
[ame="http://orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=4523"]Or erect monuments to the Probe in-game![/ame]
If Probe is with us, who can be against us?



---------- Post added at 03:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 AM ----------

Perhaps it would be better to draw attention to orbital mechanics by visualising two hyperbolic orbital arcs around an extremely close pair of moons.

Credit to the master!

 

[ISProgram]

You would NEVER even bother using KSP for visualization of a real spaceflight mission.

To agree with you, Orbiter has the credit of actually being used in such a matter, the Soyuz landing video by ESA.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l7MM9yoxII"]Soyuz undocking, reentry and landing explained - YouTube[/ame]

And then there's SpaceX...