How big should Orbiter be?

[martins]

Where "big" in this context refers purely to download and installation size, rather than awsomeness, which doesn't require a poll.

As you will have realised by now, the next version will provide a significant jump in supported texture resolution, plus elevation support, which in turn comes at the cost of larger downloads and disk space requirements. The latest Earth textures alone at full resolution currently stand at about 64GB disk space, delivered in 24GB compressed download packages, but I am not even pushing the Landsat textures to the limit. I could probably go two resolution levels higher, i.e. make everything 16 times bigger. And this is before considering local high-resolution aerial imagery.

So maybe it's a good time to ask the question: how big an Orbiter installation size would you tolerate to inhabit your harddrive?

 

[SolarLiner]

Typical game now downloads in the Gb order of magnitude. FlightGear holds up in a 1 Gb archive, but scenery is downloaded later on the fly.
With the average download size of game I download on Steam being 5-6 Gb, I wouldn't mind downloading all that, even if it means haveing a download overnight. The problem might be for slower lanes.
I guess you could make two versions of the basic package: a "normal" package that contains textures up to 2010's Level 14 textures, and then a "Mini" package that only contains textures up to 2010's Level 9 textures.

After that, download is supplied on external server, with the higher textures.

How does Orbiter load the textures? Can we change the planetary textures folder and have the changes made in real time? That'd be great for dynamic download of textures (let's say you arrive at Mars but never went to Mars before, you could have a program that starts the download as soon as you change SOI, and when you plan on landing on Olympus, it downloads high-res textures for that base). Such a program would be not so easy to make, especially for the download management, but not impossible either.

 

[Artlav]

If the sub-200Mb base package remains separate i don't think there should be an explicit limit. X-Plane, i think, had it's terrain on several DVDs, in 10s of Gb, and that was something like a decade ago.

60Gb of textures sounds reasonable, but going over 100Gb might be tempting fate so far.
Think SSDs. Most common are 60Gb and 120Gb, and you'd want to fit that monster on one of them.

Also, don't forget about bandwidth limits - a lot of people can only download 3-5Gb per month. So, also having a mid-range package of sub-1Gb should be a good idea.

 

[RisingFury]

I could buy another 1 or 2 TB hard drive, but in the end, I don't think that any of this matters.

It should be possible to provide several resolutions and everyone should be able to choose the resolution their computer can support, unless distributing this is a problem.

 

[jedidia]

Pretty much what Artlav said, although my tolerance for the base package size is a bit higher. I think it is important that the base orbiter installation comes functional in <2GB. That means some default textures and heightmaps. I think providing the base install package without any textures and heightmaps and have them all as additional downloads would be bad for business. The installation should work out of the box, though not neccessarily at its prettiest, obviously.

AAA games can consume anywhere between 5 and 40 Gigs out of the Box, so sparing 2 Gigs for Orbiter seems perfectly reasonable. As for an upper end, I'd really ask myself how much work I'd want to have with it as a developer. I mean, preparing all those textures must take some effort. Maybe the insane resolutions could be left to the community to process...

Also, cloud streaming would start to seem like an attractive option if we start to talk about terrabytes... But of course that is a whole other can of worms, development wise :shifty:

 

[Michael_Chr]

With the prices that mass storage drives holds these days... Space (with regards to storage space that is:thumbup shuldnt be that much of an issue.
But an interesting and relevant poll

 

[Urwumpe]

Until 1 TB, everything is easy - for more, I would need a dedicated gaming rig for Orbiter.

 

[Xyon]

Flight sims have always been disk-hungry. I have X-Plane 10 and FSX, both of which consume ~100G with their scenery / elevation data. While I do think it'd be awesome if someday all of these games could use a central scenery source, I am prepared to give Orbiter whatever space it wants - it is definitely worth it.

A query, though; assuming I have, as I often do, multiple working Orbiter installs, would a hard link / junction (NTFS symlink) be an acceptable way to have them all use the same scenery?

 

[martins]

A query, though; assuming I have, as I often do, multiple working Orbiter installs, would a hard link / junction (NTFS symlink) be an acceptable way to have them all use the same scenery?

Yes, as long as we are talking the same Orbiter version, symbolic links to a common scenery repository will work. 2010 and 2015 scenery won't be interchangeable.

Edit: Actually, that's not true. 2010 planetary texture files will work in Orbiter 2015, but they won't support the higher resolutions, nor elevation data.

 

[jedidia]

Heh, I didn't even think about that. That's certainly neat!

 

[NextBigLeap]

Orbiter currently takes up about 70 GB of my 1 TB hard drive, I would give up as much space as I needed to have the latest release of Orbiter.

 

[garyw]

I'm in the process of upgrading my hard drive anyway. I'll happily give orbiter what it needs as I love the new screenshots of the terrain data. It literally opens up new worlds.

 

[blixel]

Hard-drives are cheap. I'll buy a new one just for Orbiter if I have to.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Personally, I dont have an issue with Orbiter taking up a large amount of disk space, but I think that the core Orbiter package should be at least under a gigabyte in size, with any additional files downloaded separately. I would probably be willing to make any space required in order to play Orbiter, although who actually has storage space in the range of 10 Tb? The only real limit, in my opinion, would be the storage space on a typical hard drive, probably about 500 Gb or so.

Personally, I think the most sensible way of dealing with this would be to generate the textures in question, and distribute higher res texture and heightmap files by torrent. (orbitersim.com already hosts magnet links dont they?)

 

[n122vu]

Also, don't forget about bandwidth limits - a lot of people can only download 3-5Gb per month. So, also having a mid-range package of sub-1Gb should be a good idea.

Obviously this is the elephant in the room no one wants to discuss. I personally don't have this restriction (yet - if & when the Comcast-Time Warner merger happens, it won't be long), but several of my coworkers/colleagues do, and with the streaming I've been doing lately, I'd hate to have to span downloads of textures across several months just to get Orbiter up and running, only to learn that another beta is out that uses different textures, etc.

 

[martins]

Would a HDD or blu-ray shipping service help in that case? I guess Flightgear provides such an option. No idea how to organize this, but may not be too difficult. Would there be demand?

 

[BenSisko]

If there are bandwidth/download issues, I'm sure there would be a demand for a disc service.

 

[jroly]

I think about 1 gig with a basic install.

Then optional high res packs going up to the TB range.

 

[Koloss]

Playing Orbiter on a Laptop it would be a little bit pricier for me to buy a bigger harddrive but to be honest: I would do this for Orbiter.

I think that a playable basic installation on - at least - Orbiter 2010 level should be max. 1 Gigabyte.

 

[francisdrake]

I'd also vote for a basic, working installation shall not be too big. Would put that in the 1-5 GB range. This shall include basic textures for all astronomical bodies.

I agree it is fun to watch the hi-res textures from orbit, with the rivers glittering and the clouds casting their shadows! But I do not spend much time close to the ground, so very hi-res textures do not make much of a difference to me.

Probably would download hi-res tiles of Florida and Guyana for some scenic launches

I wonder if it would be possible to have an on-the-fly generation of landclass-objects like rocks, trees or sea waves for landings?