Possible Orbiter Space Flight Academy

[STS]

I would like to comment in this thread, as I think is in topic on this thread as to a advise on VSA´s, how my simgroup works, and still working since 2009. I don´t call my group a VSA, but probably is. You could answer this question from what I will say in this post.

My group started with the idea that flying solo in orbiter can become boring, so I had the idea to create a "virtual" Mission control room with humans in control. I had a tool, teamspeak, so we had something to start with, mission control via teamspeak. I also had people I knew that were interested in the idea, so we began making our first missions, flown by one pilot, and controlled by two or three persons via TS at the beginning and via Orb:Connect later.

The idea is that one, a virtual mission control, a pilot, and a scenario that grows as we build our station and is being 'tokened' from one pilot to the next (like OFSS worked).

And another thing as some guys posted here, is the time, especially at the beggining, and the persistance, and to don´t loose focus on the original idea (in my case, the virtual mission control).

About the academy, in my group we implemented a academy as follows, also, very simple: We have TeamViewer or Anydesk and TeamSpeak, so we could teach new members. And flexibility is important: The members, using a Drive form choose when they want the next class, and the instructors adapt to that. But again, free time (with responsability) is important.
The first classes consist in taking the deltaglider manually to orbit. Then we begin with docking. Later with rendezvous, and at the end, deorbit, reentry and landing. We have also advanced and specific courses for the Shuttle, for example. Also, we have exams for people who arrive with experience.

More advises, don´t expect to have a hundred members in your VSA, my simgroup has around 10 members (with time (and probably 'portfolio' and a little of marketing), members with come). Also, don´t schedule a mission every two weeks or a month, ask your members what number of missions per year they want. In my case, we try to make missions every six months. And if a member wants to leave because he doesn´t like the project, dont be angry. Listen to him and let him free.

In sort: Clear idea, free time (most at the beginning), self enjoyment, group enjoyment, flexibility and persistance are my advises.

Is my simgroup a VSA? You tell me, and I remember, I don´t consider it a VSA

 

[RacerX]

I would like to comment in this thread, as I think is in topic on this thread as to a advise on VSA´s, how my simgroup works, and still working since 2009. I don´t call my group a VSA, but probably is. You could answer this question from what I will say in this post.

My group started with the idea that flying solo in orbiter can become boring, so I had the idea to create a "virtual" Mission control room with humans in control. I had a tool, teamspeak, so we had something to start with, mission control via teamspeak. I also had people I knew that were interested in the idea, so we began making our first missions, flown by one pilot, and controlled by two or three persons via TS at the beginning and via Orb:Connect later.

The idea is that one, a virtual mission control, a pilot, and a scenario that grows as we build our station and is being 'tokened' from one pilot to the next (like OFSS worked).

And another thing as some guys posted here, is the time, especially at the beggining, and the persistance, and to don´t loose focus on the original idea (in my case, the virtual mission control).

About the academy, in my group we implemented a academy as follows, also, very simple: We have TeamViewer or Anydesk and TeamSpeak, so we could teach new members. And flexibility is important: The members, using a Drive form choose when they want the next class, and the instructors adapt to that. But again, free time (with responsability) is important.
The first classes consist in taking the deltaglider manually to orbit. Then we begin with docking. Later with rendezvous, and at the end, deorbit, reentry and landing. We have also advanced and specific courses for the Shuttle, for example. Also, we have exams for people who arrive with experience.

More advises, don´t expect to have a hundred members in your VSA, my simgroup has around 10 members (with time (and probably 'portfolio' and a little of marketing), members with come). Also, don´t schedule a mission every two weeks or a month, ask your members what number of missions per year they want. In my case, we try to make missions every six months. And if a member wants to leave because he doesn´t like the project, dont be angry. Listen to him and let him free.

In sort: Clear idea, free time (most at the beginning), self enjoyment, group enjoyment, flexibility and persistance are my advises.

Is my simgroup a VSA? You tell me, and I remember, I don´t consider it a VSA

I'm curious why you guys don't use orbiter multiplayer. What is the downfall to using multiplayer?

 

[garyw]

I'm curious why you guys don't use orbiter multiplayer. What is the downfall to using multiplayer?

1. Arranging people.
2. Having the earth stop rotating.
3. Time. Time accel in multiplayer has issues and see point 2.
4. To do an STS style mission you'll need about 9 people. 7 of them will be doing nothing except at the beginning and the end.

 

[STS]

4. To do an STS style mission you'll need about 9 people. 7 of them will be doing nothing except at the beginning and the end.

And that´s why only one or two astronauts ('toking' the scenario) fly the mission.

 

[garyw]

And that´s why only one or two astronauts ('toking' the scenario) fly the mission.

And this is what I do. One person flies the mission and does all the roles.

And as it's just one person the need for multiplayer doesn't exist.

 

[Face]

2. Having the earth stop rotating.

Not anymore, given you meant OMP.

However, there is another point:
5. The only active project for Orbiter multiplayer (OMP) closed its door due to the community pissing on its license (GPL).

 

[boogabooga]

Not anymore, given you meant OMP.

However, there is another point:
5. The only active project for Orbiter multiplayer (OMP) closed its door due to [one or two Orbiter-Forum members] [raising a potential legal concern regarding] its license (GPL).

FTFY.

 

[Face]

FTFY.

No buddy. It was plain and simple pissing. Raising a concern is not the same as stubbornly spreading FUD like a broken record over and over again.

 

[boogabooga]

I assure you that the overwhelming majority of "the community" neither cares which license you choose nor understands the legal ramifications. No one, for instance, called Richard Stallman a communist hippie.

I read that thread and I'm not going to pretend that I understood all of it, but as far as could tell an honest concern was raised, and several alternatives/solutions were considered. At no time was anyone forbidden to use the GPL if they so choose.

AFAIK, you have been the only one to become hostile in defense of one particular license, withdraw your work, and lash out everytime someone mentions one of your (former) add-ons.

 

[Face]

AFAIK, you have been the only one to become hostile in defense of one particular license, withdraw your work, and lash out everytime someone mentions one of your (former) add-ons.

First of all: I can't withdraw my work, even if I wanted to. I closed the public hostings and stopped working on it, that's a different matter.

Second: I am not lashing out, but simply stating facts. I closed the repositories back then, because the pissing started. That's what happened. No matter what your opinion is of it, don't lay words in my mouth with a FTFY, now would you?

And for the matter of hostility: you are the one demonstrating it here. Your behavior is just another data-point highlighting the validity of my statement.

 

[Urwumpe]

Children...

The final 10 days to Christmas started and some get iffy.

 

[boogabooga]

I closed the public hostings and stopped working on it, that's a different matter.

That is what I mean by "withdrawing." Sorry if my word has some additional programmer meaning.

Second: I am not lashing out, but simply stating facts.

It is not a fact that the "community" is guilty of "pissing" on your particular pet free-license. That is your opinion.

And for the matter of hostility: you are the one demonstrating it here. Your behavior is just another data-point highlighting the validity of my statement.

Defending against your accusations is not hostility.

 

[Face]

That is what I mean by "withdrawing." Sorry if my word has some additional programmer meaning.

Passive aggressiveness is also hostility. Why else do you have to play on "additional programmer meaning"?

I can't take back my work from your hard-drive. That would be withdrawing it. If you think that stopping further work is a hostile move in light of the FUD that was spread, you surely did not understand the thread you claimed to have read. It was claimed there that putting GPL on addons was somehow making them illegal, so hosters put themselves at risk. It was a simple defensive stance to stop hosting it.

Perhaps you see it as hostile because I refused to continue giving my work for free under this conditions, that could be. But then I really have to disagree with you.

It is not a fact that the "community" is guilty of "pissing" on your particular pet free-license. That is your opinion.

You totally mix things up.
First: I mentioned that OMP is closed because the community pissed on its license. This is a fact because I really closed it because in my opinion the community pissed on its license. Whether or not my opinion is the objective truth makes it not less true that I closed it because of that.
Second: I never said that it is fact that the community pissed on GPL.

BTW: Using words like "particular pet free-license" is also passive aggressive, and worth the tag "hostile".

 

[boogabooga]

Then how can you call it "pissing" and "FUD" when you yourself took the legal concerns most seriously out of anyone?

 

[Face]

How can you call it "pissing" and "FUD" when you yourself took the legal concerns most seriously out of anyone?

Well, it was FUD. It spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. Not only in me, but in others, too.

I call it "pissing", because it clearly was - as been shown in the later run of the thread - just an elaborate try to demonize the GPL. It all started with a thrown-in "it is not applicable" and a "you can't redistribute it legally". Even after the factual problems with the FUD were pointed out, the same things were brought up again and again, just to perpetuate the notion that somehow GPL is not good for Orbiter addons.

Perhaps I took it the most serious because I'm part of the community for so long, and have seen it being brought up again and again. Check estar's comment in there for a good review on that.

 

[jedidia]

 

[Face]

Back on topic: the fact there is no active multiplayer project at the moment is a good point to answer the question of RacerX regarding why not using it. Now. It might have been different back in 2009.

Do you only speak Spanish there, STS? Or is it an international group?

 

[Donamy]

Too bad the Doc wouldn't issue a new license, to put the whole thing to rest.

:2cents:

 

[Brad]

..... idea to create a "virtual" Mission control room with humans in control..

I can tell you that this is one of the things that made SimNASA successful as it allowed multiple people to participate in the missions. One program that was developed what vMC (Virtual Mission Control) - There is a picture of it on the SimNASA Facebook.....

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.519964508164552.1073741828.519951411499195&type=1&l=05eaa966a0

Multiple stations such as Flight, FIDO, Safety, Range, Weather - in addition to those flying the mission provide a since of immersion that was "cutting edge" for its time.

Another facet was the ability of providing a live feed on the SimNASA website that allowed a visitor to watch and listen to the entire thing from beginning to end just like NASA TV. In addition a historical feed for those who may have missed portions for one reason or another.

I'm not here to toot the SimNASA horn per se', but just to point out several things that someone thinking of a VSA may want to consider. Yes you can slap something together, but if you want any staying power I suspect your going to need to invest some serious thought, gather some talent, and then have the organizational skills to pull it off.

 

[Face]

One program that was developed what vMC (Virtual Mission Control)

Speaking of it, do you know if that program is still working in the current release and beta versions? Last I tried it crashed, but I did not investigate further what the error might be.