Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Projects > ORBITER: 2010-P1 and newer > Feedback
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

To Dr. Martin Schweiger Issue Tools
issueid=1200 08-17-2015 07:30 AM
Orbinaut
To Dr. Martin Schweiger

Hi all,

I tried the beta version and I have to say this: Dr. Martin Schweiger, you actually need to hire a Computer Graphics expert!

Sorry but you did a great, an amazing job on the calculations, astrodynamics, displays, vessel design, and everything regarding "the science". But I expected Orbiter 2015 to kick asses and improve on graphics, collission system, water, etc.

I'm quite sure that some badasses here, that love orbiter "as it is", will tell me: "if you don't like it, don't use it. Dr. Martin has done a big effort even he made orbiter on his leisure time."

But, even this simulator is for free, it leverages realistic calculations, it lacks of realistic effects that "insults my intelligence" as Dr. Martin pointed. After almost 10 years, it remains breaking if one shift time to 1000x, you can take-off from the sea, you can't find european or asian bases, sat super hi-res textures are still poor, spacex or nasa's addons are still flat, everything remains old and very simple. You always should download or spend some hours installing sound, UMMUs, new vessels, and other addons on every new release.

I know it is not commercial, but it could be even better from the inside. Several autopilots addons are inaccurate and you should install and uninstall, test, etc. I mean that orbiter is still for those who want to spend some time on it, learning and doing by them-selves. But it could improve more, technologies now are better than 10 years before. One day I suggested to open-source it, but I received rude comments from people that don't want orbiter to change at all. I know that building an addon requires much effort and I don't discourage that. But there are better technologies and more efficient ways to improve graphics, physics, usability, cameras, add cinematics, fix glitches, implements new vessels, build better autopilots, increase realism and constraints, improve maps, improve collissions, improve concurrent vessel flights, ... , in conclusion, making orbiter not just for .net developers but open for normal users, it does not mean to swap to a space fighter but being even more realistic on celestial bodies, earth, environment in general, disturbance, etc.

I like orbiter as a simulation tool but I'd love to immerse more into a realistic graphic space simulator. Thanks.
Issue Details
Issue Type Feedback
Project ORBITER: 2010-P1 and newer
Status Open
Priority 1 - Highest
Regarding Version Revision denoted in description
Regarding Version (none)
Users who agree 0
Users who disagree 13
Assigned Users (none)
Tags (none)

08-19-2015 03:31 PM
Unicorn hunter
 
Quote:
You always should download or spend some hours installing sound, UMMUs, new vessels, and other addons on every new release.
Get CsvInstall and sin no more.
Reply
08-19-2015 10:32 PM
Bug Crusher
 
The O-P is about the most ungrateful and disrespectful thing I have ever read.

By the way, when you say
"But, even this simulator is for free..." and then go on complaining for half a page, you don't preempt the most obvious counterpoint to your criticism. You just draw attention to the fact that you KNOW it was for free and are still complaining. IMHO, it makes you look more like a tool.
Reply
08-21-2015 03:20 PM
Donator
 
Quote:
But I expected Orbiter 2015 to kick asses and improve on graphics, collission system, water, etc.
What do you think it does? Terrain, way better collision system (vessels don't go through each other now), way better looking water...

Quote:
But there are better technologies and more efficient ways to improve graphics, physics, usability, cameras, add cinematics, fix glitches, implements new vessels, build better autopilots, increase realism and constraints, improve maps, improve collissions, improve concurrent vessel flights
Such as?

Quote:
making orbiter not just for .net developers but open for normal users
Why do you think Orbiter is related to .net?

Quote:
but being even more realistic on celestial bodies, earth, environment in general, disturbance, etc.
There is a thread here where this mathematician found that Orbiter is off by a whole 2 seconds out of a 6 month trip from Earth to Mars from what it's supposed to be...and that's caused by Orbiter neglecting gravity sources after a certain limit.

Except Dr. Schweiger mentioned that he'll put in an option to disable the neglection.

It doesn't get much better than that.

If you want something, do it yourself!!!
Reply
08-23-2015 07:45 PM
Orbinaut
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogabooga
 The O-P is about the most ungrateful and disrespectful thing I have ever read.
I agree.
Reply
08-27-2015 11:08 AM
Addon Developer
 
Quote:
I like orbiter as a simulation tool but I'd love to immerse more into a realistic graphic space simulator

Would you settle for less than a Holodeck?
Reply
08-27-2015 06:12 PM
Donator
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogabooga
 IMHO, it makes you look more like a tool.
+1

I was going to comment on the O-P. But quoting that statement is the perfect example of "work smarter, not harder."
Reply
09-02-2015 06:30 AM
Orbinaut
 
Being grateful does not equal refraining from progress. I get the point that nobody is eligible to demand Dr. Schweiger to do anything because he has no obligations whatsoever to orbiter fans. Instead of a demand, I would call the thought of further improving Orbiter a suggestion. Imagine what kind of wonder Orbiter could achieve if the said improvement are really to be employed, whether by the Dr. or by the community! It would be what Mona Lisa is to Renaissance art!

I don't like to see Orbiter slowly fading into a minority cult that only the most hardcore fans could endure the initial un-impression caused by outdated graphics, before they get to enjoy the more amazing aspects of the game. When Kebal Space Program went out, I thought it could not compete with Orbiter due it it's childish physics. Now, after continuous improvements, they manage to have a decent dose of both graphics and realism. Is that what we really want - to mock the childishness of majority games while not doing anything to save what was to us the most valuable experience of space sim genre - to experience what it is like to pilot a real spacecraft.

I am very grateful to the Dr. for introducing me to the wonders of spaceship piloting. It is exactly due to this gratitude that I must defend for the OP so that more people could enjoy Orbiter as we all once did, and do now.
Reply
09-02-2015 01:36 PM
Unicorn hunter
 
Yeah, but KSP has revenue from sales. It's no wonder that they are ahead because they can simply buy the needed manpower.

You know, even if you cannot code you could organize a kickstarter or something to fund the development...
Reply
Reply

Issue Tools
Subscribe to this issue

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:15 AM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.