Search results

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")

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.

@PhantomCruiser - I remember that thread, someone thought that the R-7/Soyuz add-on with its textureless meshes represented "flightsim 98" graphics. On the other hand, someone thought this screenshot was representative of Orbiter, but I tried to explain that was post-processed.

I used to play with Orbiter a lot because I had a mediocre pre-built PC with integrated graphics, and Orbiter 2010 was pretty non-intensive. But when I did my first PC build in the summer of 2016, there were so many other things that opened up. I could finally play Kerbal Space Program with...

The problem is that if I choose to switch focus from Orbiter to KSP development, I will lose the ability to show off my custom island spaceport, which is basically the cornerstone of my imaginary space agency's canon (There's a KSC switcher for the Real Solar System mod that allows you to put...

Lately I've been feeling conflicted if it's even worth it for me to develop add-ons for Orbiter, because almost no one would seem to care. As of now, the subreddit for KSP has over 200000 subscribers with new content everyday, while the subreddit for Orbiter has only 596 and gets one or a few...

Turns out that wasn't the real interface.

This is what the alert selection interface actually looked like:

And that reason (or at least one of them) would be that μ (the standard gravitational parameter) is simplified to equal 1 when generic distance and time units are used.

I started learning Orbiter in 2009. Only now am I formally learning orbital mechanics in college.

I was wondering why it wasn't oriented perpendicular or parallel to the longitudinal axis, but I guess it's because it couldn't fit in the fairing if it was perpendicular, and it wasn't designed to take the longitudinal loads if it was parallel.

That's an unusual orientation.

I saw it on Sunday. I try to enjoy things, and I thought it was good, but I understand people's complaints.

The original presentation (at around 34:00) said the booster would have a dry mass of 275 t and a propellant mass of 6700 t. Based on that, the new booster dry mass is (275/(6700+275))*3065 = 120.842 t.

Oh, okay. I was too busy paying attention to that precise landing to notice that it had been done fully propulsively.

You're welcome! Is that launching from the pad or landing on the pad?

Okay, so I tried imitating that entry profile from the presentation (35:30) in which the front of the BFR spaceship is pointing down (approximately -90 degrees). http://youtube.com/watch?v=tdUX3ypDVwI?t=35m30s however it's from Mars orbit (3.5 km/s) instead of interplanetary velocities (7+...

The quoted statement was the justification for that design in-universe.

According to the World of 2001 add-on, "airlines wanted an airplane that could reject a takeoff or return to base at any point, not a flame-belching vertical-takeoff behemoth that needed to get supersonic before it was possible to abort and return to land." (I'm guessing that was talking about...

It's meant to be something big enough to send colonists to Mars and something that's small enough to reasonably replace F9 and FH within the next decade. There's a reason why I haven't been working on my fictional M-III Heavy, ever since Blue Origin's New Glenn and the ITS/BFR were unveiled.