Orbiter graphics - Like these?

[Hielor]

And BTW: which physics does it use, Star wars or Neutonian?

Newtonian, but with the option to have "flight stabilization" or something which gives a more star wars-y feel to the flight, but prevents you from doing complex maneuvers (like flying sideways and shooting).

At least, that's how it was in the combat prototype.

 

[Rathelm]

Newtonian, but with the option to have "flight stabilization" or something which gives a more star wars-y feel to the flight, but prevents you from doing complex maneuvers (like flying sideways and shooting).

At least, that's how it was in the combat prototype.

Still the "game" itself is suppose to allow for FTL so take it for what it is.

 

[cjp]

I have plans for something like that (including Orbiter support), but so far I haven't made anything better than Orulex (or something even remotely approaching the Infinity video), and my things are little more than vaporware too. I'm sure Artlav would also like to make something like Infinity graphics.

Artlav is in a great position for making something like this, as he has experience making OVP plugins for the next Orbiter version, and experience making Orulex and similar add-ons.

My experience with realtime landscape renderers is that it's incredibly more complicated than you'd expect (at least I underestimated it). Based on my past failures I finished a new software design. Unfortunately, as always, I lack the time to work on it.

A hint to developers: my latest Great Idea is to use the Mercator projection. It keeps the aspect ratio of all landels close to 1, which is good for a lot of things.

 

[tblaxland]

Still the "game" itself is suppose to allow for FTL so take it for what it is.

So does Orbiter. It is Newtonian, not relativistic.

 

[Hartmann]

Impressive , but orbiter with OVP can be the same in the future

the big difference is the atmosphere, the terrain and the sun, more realistic, and the transition from surface to orbit .

orbiter need surface meshes like fs 2004 and other sims

 

[Urwumpe]

orbiter need surface meshes like fs 2004 and other sims

Come on. We also don't go into the FSX forum and demand a solar system.

 

[TMac3000]

That was unbelievable. That Saturn-like planet hanging in an Earth-like sky just blew me away.

Orbiter has some 3-dimensional elements to its terrain, but nowhere near like that.

 

[Hielor]

Come on. We also don't go into the FSX forum and demand a solar system.

Orbiter does not need the surface meshes, but you can't deny that it would be a really cool thing to have

 

[Master of Blades]

I'd be thrilled if Orbiter looked like this:

 

[BHawthorne]

This is like comparing apple to oranges. I see nothing preventing that team messing with OVP source though to do more proof of their concepts.

 

[Rathelm]

So does Orbiter. It is Newtonian, not relativistic.

I get your point. Well the original question was confusing because what would be the difference between Newtonian and Star Wars-y then?

 

[tblaxland]

I get your point. Well the original question was confusing because what would be the difference between Newtonian and Star Wars-y then?

Star Wars vessels fly like airplanes - you need to bank to turn, you slow down when you turn off your engines, that sort of thing...

 

[Rathelm]

Star Wars vessels fly like airplanes - you need to bank to turn, you slow down when you turn off your engines, that sort of thing...

Ah yeah it's been a while since I played XWing or Tie Fighter so I forgot about those little caveats.

 

[Hartmann]

Come on. We also don't go into the FSX forum and demand a solar system.

Necessary not, but it can add a lot to the simulation.

no it´s the same a flat moon that a terrain with mountains or craters. and more if the terrain features cast shadows with the light.

 

[statickid]

the bare bones install of orbiter doesn't look like that, but with the correct set of add-ons and some tweaking of the config files, orbiter can look mostly like that. especially with orulex, fog, and some other stuff. you should see some of my screenshots!

 

[ar81]

Orbiter first release was in 2000.
It means 10 years of evolution.
This is not yet a release.
I accounts for 0 years of evolution.
I may not expect it to be compared to Orbiter.

Perhaps, as a shooter sim I may compare it to Freespace or Universal Combat.

If you want non-vaporware, you should see Terragen.
http://www.planetside.co.uk/

 

[Hielor]

If you want non-vaporware, you should see Terragen.
http://www.planetside.co.uk/

Pretty shots, but not a fair comparison--those aren't rendered in real time.

 

[Bj]

Pretty shots, but not a fair comparison--those aren't rendered in real time.

Yah, only 20-40 minutes each... makes playing impossible

 

[ar81]

Pretty shots, but not a fair comparison--those aren't rendered in real time.

Yes they are real time, but very low FPS. :lol::rofl::lol:

 

[Bloodworth]

The primary difference will not be the planets and land gen. The primary difference will be the fact that while orbiter has a single solar system to navigate around, Infinity will have a realistic size galaxy of some 2 to 3 hundred billion stars and star systems, every single one of which you will be able to visit. The man already HAS a working model of the procedurally generated galaxy.

Progress IS being made on Infinity; the main thing holding it up is not so much programming as modeling. Heck, I even have the Flamberge modeled in for orbiter.