Search results

No. 😠

You're in good company. Welcome to the forum.

Hi and welcome back.

I like it!

You are somewhat correct. The new model is included by default. It's not an addon, and it's tightly integrated into the Orbiter code the same way the old one is/was. If (for instance for Jupiter) you only specify the jcoeff values, then Orbiter will use the old model, so it's fully backward...

Take a look at the VESIM documentation in one of the NASSP folders (I forget which). You can leave that box unchecked. VESIM (Vessel Specific Input) allows you to define custom joystick axes buttons and keys for exactly what you're trying to do. It level lets you have a different setup for LM...

Unfortunately, probably yes. If your goal was to fly a realistic reëntry. The CG is a bit too far forward on the stock DG. It makes it very easy to fly but not so much for realism.

Good news everyone! This has been merged into the main branch. Go have fun with the latest build, don't forget to enable non-spherical gravity. Because the perturbation force calculated by this model is done in a very similar way (same spot in the code), as the old zonal-only method...

Hi and welcome to the forums

https://www.orbiter-forum.com/resources/multistage2015-for-orbiter-2016.398/ Take a look under the Doc directory for the manual, under the section "payloads"

What do you mean by "rebuild"? Are you using OrbiterBeta R90?

@grummanonewire Can you load the default Orbiter scenarios (DG at cape, Brighton beach etc.)? It looks like you were trying to load Apollo 8, is it just that scenario or do all of them crash? also, can you verify that "Missions\ProjectApollo\Apollo 8.cfg" actually exists in your install

I have some ideas on it. I keep meaning to make a placeholder thread. Essentially what we need to do is replace the ephemerides module for one of the moons of Mars (Phobos?), because its 32 but only and we don't have the source. A lot of the groundwork is already done, it's just having the time...

@80mileshigh

This turns out not to have been the problem.... @indy91 actually added some code back in 2020 to prevent the divide by zero case that I caused. What is actually happening here is that because everything is on FC2 and FC 2 has just the right combination of load on it, its voltage and current...

@Wedge313 I looked through the code, and I am fairly confident that the fix for the NaNs is just to guard against the potential of divide by zero cases (basically, we calculate the resistance of all the load attached to the cell and use that to calculate voltage drop and heat and a bunch of...

Welcome back :)

We've also been working on a fix for the cold LM problem (and some other thermal radiation problems) for a while. This will eventually get merged and fix a bunch of things and make radiative heating and cooling much more realistic.

For me it was the ads when I first opened it.

The other things to check would be an overzealous antivirus. Or check the windows event viewer application logs.