General Question How is Kerbal more famous than Orbiter.

[GLS]

Should then Martin have flattened all the runways for us, while we talk here all day? :shrug:

Currently, my only issues with Orbiter are some animation limitations and issues, and the vc panel click problem, all the rest is on us developers.

A thread a few days ago exposed this. In Orbiter 2016, Martin has provided the capability to control the field of view "legally", (i.e., without hacks), and AFAIK nobody made a simple MFD to replace the existing MFDs from Orbiter 2010. I had that in my mind for quite some time and finally took the time off my "shuttle addiction" and made such a MFD, which is awaiting approval in OH.
Yes, shame on me for not doing it earlier, but also shame on many users that could use something as simple as that to give the first steps into programming and/or addon coding.

 

[Artlav]

3D terrain, which "created" some well known side-effects, like hilly runways, bouncy ships' contact points, etc.

Really?
I thought these were only a problem back in the day because Meshland/Orules and derivatives couldn't access the physics engine.

 

[jedidia]

Yes it seems there are few developers.

Actually I think the reason for this is that the community is getting older. We're not getting much young blood anymore. The old guard has more responsiblity at their job than we had 10 years ago. Some have founded families along the line. Interests have wandered, priorities changed. C++ isn't getting any younger either, and for professionals it can feel cumbersome to spend their free time coding in a language that needs ten lines of code for what they can do with one with another language they use at work.

As far as I can see, many of the once active developers are still around, they're just not developing anymore because they have less time and need it for other things (myself included).

 

[Face]

As far as I can see, many of the once active developers are still around, they're just not developing anymore because they have less time and need it for other things (myself included).

Or just stopped developing because they see no point in it anymore. Own itches scratched already, and all that...

BTW, regarding the terrain topic, I remember someone coming up with the idea of implementing a simple flattening mechanism, and another one even coding that thing, but for some reason zero were given. Hilly terrain can hardly be the issue, then.

 

[barrygolden]

yes we all have grown older and it would be great to see orbiter 2020. the detail has greatly improved sense 2006 and that has helped keep this going. Maybe the days of 1000's of people downloading are not there right now but I do think when the or if the Artemis missions fly there will be more interest in orbiter .
I have started running some Artemis missions using some of the constellation hard ware combined with some of the AMSO stuff. 4th rock gave us some new LZ's to explore and if the terrain issue could be solved the future looks bright for those missions. For me I get a kick out of learning to modify these scn and to see what an Astronaut might see.
I know there is a lot of work going on with the Shuttle and I would like to see some of the unflown missions. If you have the time look in you tube at the kerbel Shuttle/ISS missions and we might need to rethink Orbiter to that level of detail. For me its draw back are those little green guys I think they should use detailed Astronauts like AMSO or the ones done by dommany and gattis but then would have to change the name of kerbel.
I do have thanks to gattis a flying Venture Star but it does need the AFCS system to land and more payloads to fly.
For those who don't know I was close to a Shuttle seat but" Challenger" and Mom's kidney stones ended that dream but Orbiter for me has kept my Dream Alive .
We need to be ready for the Mars 2020 rover I know most of the flight hardware is done but the LZ needs work and brianj needs his hand in that to make it fly and land and 4th rock to revel us a super landscape to explore along with gattis Mars copter to fly as well

 

[4throck]

I think the major reason for this is (quite paradoxically) due to the much awaited 3D terrain, which "created" some well known side-effects, like hilly runways, bouncy ships' contact points, etc.
All this, coupled with the perceived lack of immediate support at release time, discouraged the developers.

To me the main problem is the lack of support for the new surface contact points on the ship configs and LUA (script vessels).
So 2016 forced all development into custom .dlls and this reduced the number or add-ons / developers drastically.

 

[Notebook]

To me its the inherent complexity of the "surface tiles" replacement. Used to make a few surface bases but can't get my head around the new system.

 

[4throck]

Yes, the new terrain/surface system is awkward and bases are sort of deprecated.

But the new "tileedit" solves the problem and is easy to work with. Have you tried it?
I can help you with this, it's relatively simple really.

 

[Notebook]

Thanks for the offer 4throck. I'm looking to start on a new area, when I get stuck I'll ask!

Thanks, G.