Idea Moonraker for Space Shuttle Vessel (SSV)

gamer19

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
231
Reaction score
376
Points
78
the funniest topic ever 🤟
c'mon @GLS ...you gotta do it now 🥸



:ROFLMAO:
 

Marg

Active member
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
68
Points
28
I agree with GLS, for me is has been a bit strange feeling all these years, that there are people who have not any deep interest in realistic shuttle operations, just "shallow" gaming. They never care about PAM-D + satellite (and etc.) deployments, APU starting procedures or, that early ET's had antigeyser lines etc...
 

gattispilot

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
8,939
Reaction score
2,896
Points
203
Location
Dallas, TX
I think that was the reason for Shuttle Fleet. Sure STS2016 not all switches,.... operate things. Like SSV few people coding it. For me tell me how it works,......
 

Max-Q

99 40
Addon Developer
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
768
Reaction score
1,187
Points
108
Location
Cislunar Space
Website
www.orbiter-forum.com
I agree with GLS, for me is has been a bit strange feeling all these years, that there are people who have not any deep interest in realistic shuttle operations, just "shallow" gaming. They never care about PAM-D + satellite (and etc.) deployments, APU starting procedures or, that early ET's had antigeyser lines etc...
Yeah. Addons like SSV and NASSP aren’t games, they are high fidelity simulations and have a very steep learning curve. After all, you‘re learning to fly the vehicle in the same way the real crews flew them, except on your own with no instructors or gigantic training manuals.
 

diogom

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
1,384
Reaction score
429
Points
98
I might be misunderstanding the intent of the comment, but not sure calling it ""shallow" gaming" is very productive honestly. IMO one of the great things about Orbiter is it can offer both experiences. People can still be interested in spaceflight and learning more about how it works in a more basic way, but not have to sit through a long checklist going through every subsystem. For others, that's the meat of it. That goes for developers as well as users, I think. And maybe one can even feel like one or the other depending on the day, I'd say there's value to the community in having both approaches available and letting people choose. As much as I value the more complex addons, and I agree one shouldn't try NASSP and tell the devs "it's too hard", not entirely sure Orbiter would still be around without the other option.
 

Marg

Active member
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
68
Points
28
I am not myself super-sim addict as well (also a kind of a gamer), only after GLS's SSV I have gotten deeper into the "panel"' "checklist thing". Space Transportation System 2016 also is super addon (gattispilot's project). And it is important that Orbiter allows to make some "quick things" in scenario editor, to demonstrate other people what was happening... but I never cared about unreal things (even questioning Centaur-G, because it never flew, but as it existed in reality so it 's OK). And Moonraker definitely never had OPS screens if I remember correctly :). So even in early stages of Shuttle fleet I had interest how to make real payloads (for example, PAM-D cradles + deployment) work, hm, hard to believe it's 15 years ago (Gazza+Camelopardalis).
 

Arvil

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
420
Reaction score
331
Points
78
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Preferred Pronouns
he/him
To some, the focus is on the technical aspect, the checklist, flipping of switches, operating primitive computers to duplicate the real world flights; to others the joy is planning orbits, to get there without missing, more like SpaceX style with touchscreens and let the computers do the grunt work. Orbiter offers all varieties for everyone.
:cheers: to martins for makin’ the best.
 
Top