Is that a problem preventing developing Orbiter add-ons? :shrug:I can't help you,I have windows 7.:dry:
I'm so amazed about how nobody responded to this.:rofl:
I can't help you,I have windows 7.:dry:
I don't have a program for animating that works for Windows7.
Ah. Who says you need one? Try it with Blender, then run it through Spacecraft 3 to test everything.
Orbiter is not well suited for surface exploration. You can simulate a landing, and you can have terrain, but driving over terrain is not supported in a consistent form.
So when people decide to do an add-on, they will naturally devote their time to things that Orbiter does much better, like space-stations for example.
And even if you had 3D terrain, a realistic rover simulation would involve time delayed commands and some sort of programming. It's not something you drive in real time using a VC!:lol:
The OP is interested in landing and driving around, not so much in getting there. So I gave my explanation as to why the driving part seems to draw little interest.
That was the original question, as far as I understand it... not why we don't have add-on X but have add-on Y.
I agreed that the EDL would be VERY interesting to simulate!
Perhaps just that part... and perhaps with other cargos besides Curiosity...