Discussion OpenOrbiter project fork

Xyon

Puts the Fun in Dysfunctional
Administrator
Moderator
Addon Developer
Webmaster
GFX Staff
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
6,876
Reaction score
695
Points
203
Location
10.0.0.1
Website
www.orbiter-radio.co.uk
Preferred Pronouns
she/her
Hello Orbinauts and developers alike.

In recent weeks, I sent Martin a DM here asking several questions about the use of the "Orbiter" name for open-source continuations of the project, but haven't had an answer back (which I did expect).

As a result, to facilitate future releases of the codebase, I've pulled together a new Github organisation to house a fork of the codebase now officially named OpenOrbiter - you can find the repo here.

Shortly I will be establishing a site hosted on the same server as the forum, which will give some project info and access to the project itself, and some more infrastructure around housing OpenOrbiter builds, to make obtaining a copy of the project slightly more straightforward.

Questions, comments, suggestions, are all welcome as to how this should move forward beyond the vague outline I have laid out above.
 

Thymo

I like breaking things
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
118
Reaction score
145
Points
58
Website
nassp.space
I very much do not see the point in doing this. There already is an Orbiter organisation on GitHub to which members on this forum have administrative privileges.
Orbiter has been made open source to allow others to continue it's development. Your concern is the use of the name "Orbiter" for the continued development of the same product. This would only be a valid issue if the name "Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator" is trademarked, which it is not.

My fear in forking Orbiter is that you will lose reputation that has been built under the original name for so many years and that it will cause a divide in both users and developers, some of them continuing with Orbiter, others with your fork of OpenOrbiter. I urge the persons that have been granted maintainer privileges to Orbiter to exercise them and to continue the development of Orbiter under its current name.
 

Xyon

Puts the Fun in Dysfunctional
Administrator
Moderator
Addon Developer
Webmaster
GFX Staff
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
6,876
Reaction score
695
Points
203
Location
10.0.0.1
Website
www.orbiter-radio.co.uk
Preferred Pronouns
she/her
I very much do not see the point in doing this. There already is an Orbiter organisation on GitHub to which members on this forum have administrative privileges.
Orbiter has been made open source to allow others to continue it's development. Your concern is the use of the name "Orbiter" for the continued development of the same product. This would only be a valid issue if the name "Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator" is trademarked, which it is not.

My fear in forking Orbiter is that you will lose reputation that has been built under the original name for so many years and that it will cause a divide in both users and developers, some of them continuing with Orbiter, others with your fork of OpenOrbiter. I urge the persons that have been granted maintainer privileges to Orbiter to exercise them and to continue the development of Orbiter under its current name.

I appreciate your thoughts, and your concerns, and I should note that I am also one of the maintainers of the orbitersim organisation itself.

The thing is, there's already a disconnect here, the terms "Orbiter" and "OpenOrbiter" have been used more or less interchangeably since the project went open-source, which leads to a bit of confusion about what pertains to what.

In addition, while we have maintainer privileges to the repository, only martin has Owner rights to the orbitersim organisation. We can't add any new maintainers, nor any new projects, any scaffolding around the repository as it currently is within that organisation. Moving the "official" FOSS effort to a new organisation allows us to add additional Owners who can perform those duties and gives us the flexibility to add supporting structures around the project like I outlined in my first post.

Remember too that, while the projects are in different repositories, contributions to the original repository can be brought into this one using GitHub's Pull Request feature. We needn't create any sort of divide. Instead the forked project just has a little more capacity to move forward as its own entity, not confined by the issues I noted here.
 
Last edited:

n72.75

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Donator
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
2,342
Reaction score
905
Points
128
Location
Biddeford ME
Website
mwhume.space
Preferred Pronouns
he/him
Ideally martin would have given owner privlages to someone else, so I think this is a workable compromise.

I like the idea of a webpage. I do think we should continue to refer to the project as Orbiter as much as possible.

It's probably worth revisiting the roadmap thread and organizing the ideas there into a coherent list.

What do we need to do so that we can package and release a 32 bit Orbiter2022? It would be so cool if our NASSP install instructions didn't involve svn or symbolic links for textures. :)
 

n72.75

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Donator
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
2,342
Reaction score
905
Points
128
Location
Biddeford ME
Website
mwhume.space
Preferred Pronouns
he/him
I think there needs to be more discussion about what's going on for development. I see a lot of effort going into several projects.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with forking the repo and going off in your own direction, but that's not what I think anyone intends to do. I think all of the people currently working on Orbiter intend for it to merge together into one release.

The only other open source project that I have worked on is NASSP. We are a small team of developers, and we obviously work on it when we have free time and life permits, but, when we're working on adding features or improving some aspect, we discuss our progress on our IRC channel almost every day. Orbiter is potentially a much larger project and I think it needs some more immediate discussion. Forum posts are great, but I forsee trouble down the road, where people try to merge features that they've been working on for a while, without discussing potential conflicts.

We have a discord, and a channel for development. We should talk more there.

Also, revisiting the roadmap thread. We need to answer what our next release is going to look like and consist of, and what items we need to check off to make that happen. I don't think it will be too hard to make this happen, given how much work the community has already been able to put into it.
 

Abloheet

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
201
Reaction score
25
Points
43
Location
Kolkata,West Bengal
At the moment, I think it's best to release Martin's last upload to GitHub as is with XRSound integrated. The main thing pending is a well rounded documentation. This can be the first step for releasing Orbiter 2022, and it is going to be the last to support MOGE.

Before releasing Orbiter 2022, let Jarmonik chime in whether he has the time to support updated d3d9 client for this last build of Orbiter 2022.

Also, whether it is possible to integrate frameworks like VesselBuilder and Orbiter Crews/OMMU/UCSO into Orbiter 2022 release, or better to let them remain as add-ons for this release. They can be integrated in a future release of OpenOrbiter, which can then drop MOGE and have dx9 integrated; we can then also implement proper collisions into OpenOrbiter. The support for surface bases will be improved too. Currently Orbiter graphics clients like d3d9 client don't have support for animated base elements like trains, monorails, etc implemented. A call needs to be taken whether they be dropped or reworked and expanded in future.

Some minor planets like Ceres and Pluto should also be part of Core Orbiter distribution with the updated surface features labelling, since Vesta is already included, and the add-ons for Ceres and Pluto already exist on Orbiter Hangar.

For now however, it is important to release Orbiter 2022 with whatever changes Martin made after R90 with XRSound integration and updated documentation.
 

4throck

Enthusiast !
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
3,502
Reaction score
991
Points
153
Location
Lisbon
Website
orbiterspaceport.blogspot.com
Having a complete solar system would be very nice, especially because Orbiter is mostly about space navigation.

I think the integration process into the core for these non-code assets like planets (texture, meshes, markers, etc) should be by releasing first to OH.
Ideally, we should have a "core contribution" category for these addons, and a way to give "co-autorship" to the Orbiter dev team. (If not it can be explicitly mentioned in the description text...)

This would allow testing and quick updates as usual, without overloading Orbiter devs with extra tasks. Authorship and authorization issues are also solved.
Once integrated these addons should be removed from OH (the dev team can do it because they were added as co-authors on uploading).
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,993
Reaction score
1,674
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
I think we need to differ there between Orbiter as engine and Orbiter the distribution. Things like solar systems, vehicles, tutorial scenarios, etc could be handled by the distribution aspect of it, instead of making it mandatory part of Orbiters engine and all its forks.
 

IronRain

The One and Only (AFAIK)
Administrator
Moderator
News Reporter
Donator
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
3,455
Reaction score
374
Points
123
Location
Utrecht
Website
www.spaceflightnewsapi.net
I'd like to propose the following then:
Orbiter, the main one (https://github.com/orbitersim/orbiter), will receive patches and new core features.
And think I I've got merge rights, so maybe I'll need to take a look at the PRs.

Xyon and I started with something called OpenOrbiter a while back, we could use that as a distribution version.
Every 6 months we build a new release, including the latest version of whatever we include in the distro.
 

OvalDreamX

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
68
Reaction score
113
Points
33
Location
Bariloche, Patagonia Argentina
Xyon and I started with something called OpenOrbiter a while back, we could use that as a distribution version.
Every 6 months we build a new release, including the latest version of whatever we include in the distro.
That would be perfect. Orbiter and OpenOrbiter are names easily distiguished one from the other and OpenOrbiter is pretty clear in that it means the version derivated from open sourcing it
 

Sword7

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
116
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Location
Gaithersburg, MD
I cloned OpenOrbiter from GitHub and checked out with d3d9client branch.

Yay! I successfully build all on OpenOrbiter project (64-bit mode) with Visual Studio 2022.

I executed Orbiter and selected one. It told me that no graphics client.

How do I add D3D9 client to Orbiter configuration file?

I noticed that PDF files are not compiled. I enabled it in cmake setting but it stopped as build failure after successfully built each PDF file. I installed D3D9 SDK, Doxygen, Miktek and LibreOffice. CMake recongized and found them.
 

supersonic71

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
59
Reaction score
83
Points
18
Location
Asia Pac
Website
github.com

Sword7

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
116
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Location
Gaithersburg, MD
Got it now. I installed DX9 legacy drivers and SDK package on Windows 10. I executed "build all" and "install orbiter". I did not see Orbiter.exe but Orbiter_NG.exe. I checked Video tab but Orbiter did not see 3D hardware as detection. I tried to select D3D9 client but It still told me no graphics client and running in server mode.

I installed Orbiter 2016 distro (32-bit mode) and it can see 3D hardware as detection.

My video card is EVGA Nvidia GTX 1080.

Update: I checked Orbiter.log and noticed that it failed to load D3D9 client module with error code 126. I succesfully compiled and installed D3D9 client into Modules/Plugin.

Code:
**** Orbiter.log
000000.000: Build Jul 29 2022 [v.602931718]
000000.000: Timer precision: 1e-07 sec
000000.000: Found 0 joystick(s)
000000.000: Module AtlantisConfig.dll .... [Build 220729, API 220729]
000000.000: Module AtmConfig.dll ......... [Build 220729, API 220729]
000000.000: Module DGConfigurator.dll .... [Build 220729, API 220729]
000000.000: ============================ ERROR: ===========================
000000.000: Failed loading module Modules\Plugin\D3D9Client.dll (code 126)
000000.000: [Orbiter::LoadModule | M:\Projects\orbiter.vs\orbiter\Src\Orbiter\Orbiter.cpp | 574]
000000.000: ===============================================================
000000.000: ============================ ERROR: ===========================
000000.000: Failed loading module Modules\Plugin\D3D9Client.dll (code 126)
000000.000: [Orbiter::LoadModule | M:\Projects\orbiter.vs\orbiter\Src\Orbiter\Orbiter.cpp | 574]
000000.000: ===============================================================

Update 2: I figured them out and decided to re-install DX9 SDK with runtime drivers. It successfully loaded and run D3D9 client! Everything worked! I noticed blank surface and now have to install planet database files.

Code:
**** Orbiter.log
000000.000: Build Jul 29 2022 [v.602931718]
000000.000: Timer precision: 1e-07 sec
000000.000: Found 0 joystick(s)
000000.000: Module AtlantisConfig.dll .... [Build 220729, API 220729]
000000.000: Module AtmConfig.dll ......... [Build 220729, API 220729]
000000.000: Module DGConfigurator.dll .... [Build 220729, API 220729]
000000.000: ---------------------------------------------------------------
000000.000: BaseDir    : M:\Projects\orbiter.vs\orbiter\out\install\x64-Debug\Orbiter\
000000.000: ConfigDir  : M:\Projects\orbiter.vs\orbiter\out\install\x64-Debug\Orbiter\Config\
000000.000: MeshDir    : M:\Projects\orbiter.vs\orbiter\out\install\x64-Debug\Orbiter\Meshes\
000000.000: TextureDir : M:\Projects\orbiter.vs\orbiter\out\install\x64-Debug\Orbiter\Textures\
000000.000: HightexDir : M:\Projects\orbiter.vs\orbiter\out\install\x64-Debug\Orbiter\Textures2\ [[DIR NOT FOUND!]]
000000.000: ScenarioDir: M:\Projects\orbiter.vs\orbiter\out\install\x64-Debug\Orbiter\Scenarios\
000000.000: ---------------------------------------------------------------
000000.000: D3D9 DLLs  : C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\d3d9.dll [v 10.0.19041.1806]
000000.000: ---------------------------------------------------------------
000000.000: Module D3D9Client.dll ........ [Build 220729, API 220729]
000000.000:
000000.000: **** Creating simulation session
000000.000: D3D9: [DirectX 9 Initialized]
000000.000: D3D9: 3D-Adapter.............. : NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
000000.000: D3D9: MaxTextureWidth......... : 16384
000000.000: D3D9: MaxTextureHeight........ : 16384
000000.000: D3D9: MaxTextureRepeat........ : 8192
000000.000: D3D9: VolTexAddressCaps....... : 0x3F
000000.000: D3D9: NumSimultaneousRTs...... : 4
000000.000: D3D9: VertexDeclCaps.......... : 0x30F
000000.000: D3D9: MiscCaps................ : 0x2FCEF2
000000.000: D3D9: Vertex Texture.......... : Yes
000000.000: D3D9: Separate AlphaBlend..... : Yes
000000.000: D3D9: Shadow Mapping.......... : Yes
000000.000: D3D9: D3DFMT_A16B16G16R16F.... : Yes
000000.000: D3D9: D3DFMT_A32B32G32R32F.... : Yes
000000.000: D3D9: D3DFMT_D32F_LOCKABLE.... : Yes
000000.000: D3D9: D3DFMT_A2R10G10B10...... : Yes
000000.000: D3D9: D3DFMT_L8............... : Yes
000000.000: D3D9: D3DDTCAPS_DEC3N......... : No
000000.000: D3D9: D3DDTCAPS_FLOAT16_2..... : Yes
000000.000: D3D9: D3DDTCAPS_FLOAT16_4..... : Yes
000000.000: D3D9: Runs under WINE......... : No
000000.000: D3D9: D3D9Build Date.......... : 220729
000000.000: D3D9: Available Texture Memory : 4081 MB
000000.000: D3D9: [3DDevice Initialized]
000000.000: D3D9: [Loading Constellations]
000000.000: D3D9: [D3D9Client Initialized]
 
Last edited:

jedidia

shoemaker without legs
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
10,386
Reaction score
1,631
Points
203
Location
between the planets
Just a quick question concerning the thread here:

It does indeed look like Sketchpad2.h is not included in OpenOrbiter. However, some add-ons apparently need it to build. Is there a specific reason the file was left out of the OpenOrbiter build?
 

Abloheet

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
201
Reaction score
25
Points
43
Location
Kolkata,West Bengal
For the forum adminstration, any news or updates about the status of the planned OpenOrbiter distro? Has it been built, with its own website?
 
Top