General Question How is Kerbal more famous than Orbiter.

[Urwumpe]

Another factor is sure the lack of frameworks. For example OrbiterSound and UCGO are not yet updated to 2016 and both are pretty wacky to use there.

An open-source framework for making add-on development easier is still out of sight. The next big question would for example be: What should such a middleware do?

 

[Face]

Another factor is sure the lack of frameworks. For example OrbiterSound and UCGO are not yet updated to 2016 and both are pretty wacky to use there.

An open-source framework for making add-on development easier is still out of sight. The next big question would for example be: What should such a middleware do?

TBH, I would not invest time in open-source frameworks replacing and/or extending on OS, UCGO or UMmu. You will immediately run into licensing and/or versioning problems due to it being a middle-ware (what license to avoid another Vinka, what policy on deploying together with addons?), you have a fragmented "market" with the legacy framework status being in limbo, and you risk your work becoming obsolete if the "true" framework suddenly returns with a new and improved version.

You can mitigate the later point a bit by means of working out the first version behind the scenes, so the original author is not "teased" too much. Place it when ready, then lure legacy users with some shiny new feature. In the end, the peer pressure ("does it have UMmu?") will do its work. Still risky, but might work.
Of course it would be more faithful to win people by arguments like "it is open, so you won't risk these update-problems any more". But in my experience this doesn't work, because folks don't give a dime on the philosophies behind it, they only see the immediate advantage of shiny features. Not that I can blame them for that, mind you.

 

[Pipcard]

I wish Orbiter had support for full body animations (i.e. astronauts walking in various gravities), and I wish KSP had support for realistically-proportioned human models.

 

[Messierhunter]

devs don't upgrade their addons, and they don't allow others to do it because no source code is available (let's not go there again :lol.

Not to step on a third rail here, but is there any specific clause or rule preventing open source add-on creation for orbiter? I never used to have any interest in modding for orbit since so much of it required programming experience, but I've recently gained some experience and I'd like to try my hand at it a bit. Are we allowed to share source code on the forum or is that a no-no?

 

[Face]

Not to step on a third rail here, but is there any specific clause or rule preventing open source add-on creation for orbiter? I never used to have any interest in modding for orbit since so much of it required programming experience, but I've recently gained some experience and I'd like to try my hand at it a bit. Are we allowed to share source code on the forum or is that a no-no?

Posting code on the forum is allowed. What people then can do with it is another thing. Snippets of code normally count as public domain, archives with many KLOC in it depend on the license attached to it. If none is attached, normally it defaults to "all rights reserved", meaning that you can't redistribute, compile and post the resulting binaries without permission of the author.

If it is one of the permissive open-source licenses like e.g. MIT, you basically give the code away for everyone to do as they like with it.

 

[GLS]

Not to step on a third rail here, but is there any specific clause or rule preventing open source add-on creation for orbiter? I never used to have any interest in modding for orbit since so much of it required programming experience, but I've recently gained some experience and I'd like to try my hand at it a bit. Are we allowed to share source code on the forum or is that a no-no?

If the code is yours, or you have permission from the author, you can post it here (or anywhere), release it with your addon, or keep it to yourself.

The problem with that last option, coming back to the topic, is that if (for whatever reason) you don't update your addon for Orbiter 2020 shifty no one can.
BTW: I'm not saying you (or anyone) should do this or that with their work, it's a personal choice.

---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

I wish Orbiter had support for full body animations (i.e. astronauts walking in various gravities), and I wish KSP had support for realistically-proportioned human models.

I never played KSP, but you can do animations in Orbiter so that should be very possible to do. :shrug:
And now with the new touchdown points you could even make the astronaut roll on the ground. :rofl:

 

[Pipcard]

I never played KSP, but you can do animations in Orbiter so that should be very possible to do. :shrug:
And now with the new touchdown points you could even make the astronaut roll on the ground. :rofl:

You can't do walk cycles, though. UMmus just slide along the ground. (and there are some add-ons that have the astronaut models "hopping")

 

[gattispilot]

You can't do walk cycles, though. UMmus just slide along the ground. (and there are some add-ons that have the astronaut models "hopping")

You can if you have a mesh with joints and code to do it. So if you move forward you put one foot in front of another,....

 

[jedidia]

I wish Orbiter had support for full body animations

Make it!

You can't do walk cycles, though.

That's wrong. The animations that come with Orbiter are not useful for that, true, but the API does provide full real-time access to the meshes. You could totally rig skeletal animations with vertex weighting in there. It's just a piece of work...

Too much was shifted from the simulator's core on to the add-on creator.

The only meaningful difference I noticed between 2010 and 2016 is that touchdown points got a lot more... touchy. That's about the only breaking API change there was, and the only thing that has gotten more complicated.

Another factor is sure the lack of frameworks.

Absolutely. And those pretty much have to be open source, or we run into the UCGO/Orbiter Sound problem. I think we'll have to rewrite these in the next few years...
For something completely different, anybody interested in a UI-framework superimposed on the Orbiter panel? :shifty:

 

[Urwumpe]

TBH, I would not invest time in open-source frameworks replacing and/or extending on OS, UCGO or UMmu. You will immediately run into licensing and/or versioning problems due to it being a middle-ware (what license to avoid another Vinka, what policy on deploying together with addons?), you have a fragmented "market" with the legacy framework status being in limbo, and you risk your work becoming obsolete if the "true" framework suddenly returns with a new and improved version.

Well, functionally, it has been used a lot, so at least having something that fits into the niche would be nice, don't you think? But yes, it also makes no sense to simply take UMMU and copy it.

 

[barrygolden]

I thought that KSP was just a joke but take a look at some of the new STS missions on you tube and you'll see some super details with the earth, stars, shadows, and the shuttle and payloads. Really great work.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Why is KSP more popular? Because it's a sandbox game, whereas Orbiter is a simulator. Most people prefer the freedom provided in a sandbox game.

 

[Urwumpe]

Why is KSP more popular? Because it's a sandbox game, whereas Orbiter is a simulator. Most people prefer the freedom provided in a sandbox game.

Orbiter could also be a sandbox - it just lacks a game. :lol:

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Orbiter could also be a sandbox - it just lacks a game. :lol:

Not really. You're largely restricted to prebuilt vessels in Orbiter, while in KSP, you have to make them yourself. Yes, Orbiter has IMS, but that's the exception, rather than the rule.

 

[Urwumpe]

Not really. You're largely restricted to prebuilt vessels in Orbiter, while in KSP, you have to make them yourself. Yes, Orbiter has IMS, but that's the exception, rather than the rule.

What does that have to do with "sandbox game?" Yes, you have a construction system in KSP, which works by having largely simplified and streamlined physics. For example you never need to worry about thruster placement.

But that not what sandbox game means. See definition:

A game in which the player has been freed from traditional video game structure and direction, and instead chooses what, when, and how they want to approach the available content. The term alludes to a child's sandbox without rules, with play based on open-ended choice. While some sandbox games may include building and creative activities, they are not required. Sandbox games generally employ an open world setting to facilitate the player's freedom of choice.

And really: I don't want to create the 500th clone of KSP from Orbiter. Lets be distinct. But yes, by that definition, Orbiter can support a large variety of sandbox games - the question is just what the available content should be then.

 

[Pipcard]

Yes, you have a construction system in KSP, which works by having largely simplified and streamlined physics. For example you never need to worry about thruster placement.

Actually, you do. The yellow sphere is center of mass, the purple arrow is the average thrust vector. (there's also a mod that aids you in RCS thruster placement)

 

[Urwumpe]

Actually, you do. The yellow sphere is center of mass, the purple arrow is the average thrust vector. (there's also a mod that aids you in RCS thruster placement)

First of all - I also own KSP, though my daughter plays more with it than I do now. So please, no lectures about what KSP can do and how many mods you can install. I have bought it.

Second: rotational RCS will always work fine, even if you create nonsense. I did not even notice a higher fuel consumption if you create nonsense.

 

[jedidia]

Yes, Orbiter has IMS, but that's the exception, rather than the rule.

And seeing when IMS2 had its last update, despite being in pretty continuous development, it should become clear why... Such big stuff just takes ridiculously long if you don't have an 8-hour day to spend on it.
And this is, in fact, another point to consider: KSP is a professional product, developed by a team working full-time, while Orbiter is a free-time project of one man. The mere fact that we can even compare the two on the same level speaks volumes about Orbiters quality and possibilities, no matter whether it loses in some respects.

 

[Pipcard]

First of all - I also own KSP, though my daughter plays more with it than I do now. So please, no lectures about what KSP can do and how many mods you can install. I have bought it.

Second: rotational RCS will always work fine, even if you create nonsense. I did not even notice a higher fuel consumption if you create nonsense.

Sorry for assuming. But even if placement doesn't matter that much for rotation, it definitely matters for translation. It is possible for the RCS placements to result in the ship slightly rotating when you try to translate.

 

[Urwumpe]

Sorry for assuming. But even if placement doesn't matter that much for rotation, it definitely matters for translation. It is possible for the RCS placements to result in the ship slightly rotating when you try to translate.

And still: Compared to Orbiter, its cheating easy.

And again: Why should Orbiter try to be that way? KSP already is.