Realistic Space Flight Simulator

[Puma]

I really love space flight simulators I have tried many of them, Have you ever tried this:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/go-for-launch-mercury-vr-educational#/

you may download the free demo here:

https://dl.orangedox.com/r9vGCk0tbGhIEMTSDV

Is there any chance that Orbiter could be something like that in the future?
it also support virtual reality devices, so the experience is quite equal as the astronauts lived, maybe people forgot that those that were inside the cockpits were astronauts, so the focus of simulation is totally wrong! this should not be space flight controllers simulators, but astronauts simulators, since those guys are the ones who really went into space, not the flight controllers, so an astronaut simulator should not be about making calculation and using mfd, since it is not in that way!

 

[Kyle]

VR for Orbiter has been discussed before... no easy task!

 

[mike-c]

orbiter is all i need


For me it is all about MFD's and calculations.
I learn a lot of it.
Flying the scenarios and doing first steps in vessel making.

Then with the help of MFD's and Meshes, the realism is created by my imagination.
And this is good.

Orbiter is all i need.

 

[Keatah]

Orbiter and SpaceEngine are all I need. Both of these packages benefit from continued ongoing development, are labors of love, are free, customizable, and have big sandboxes.

With Orbiter there are even more things like an established community and a bevy of sophisticated add-ons.

 

[jedidia]

Is there any chance that Orbiter could be something like that in the future?

Yes. The thing with Orbiter is, it can be a lot of things, if somebody is willing to put in the work to make it happen. The usual reply to questions as this is therefore: Sure, give it a go!

 

[FlyingSinger]

It's really incredible the number of different space and astronomy simulations that are out there, available or in development, free and otherwise. There's something for everybody it seems. I had never heard of "Go For Launch" and with hyper-realistic cockpits and VR support, it might be missing only G forces (zero and otherwise) to recreate the astronaut experience, although Mercury is a pretty limited spacecraft and mission (albeit with lots of switches). I also never heard of Space Engine but it looks cool, more like a modern, VR-ready version of Celestia than a space flight sim. Something like a super-detailed astronomy program with a magic carpet for flying anywhere you like. Looks cool. I will check it out. I've also been seeing screen shots on Facebook of a new "Space Simulator" (space-simulator.com) which I have on iPad. The Steam version (PC/Mac I guess) is in development and the Apollo and Shuttle interiors look amazing. It does follow closely the space FLIGHT simulation model of Orbiter (and even the MFD model, which works only so-so on iPad).

So let a thousand space sims bloom! The only problem is finding time to play with (or even look at or think about) them. So I keep coming back to Orbiter in which I at least know how to do some things, and with the 2016 version and D3D9, it still looks pretty great. I can wait a few years for VR.

 

[Thorsten]

Space Simulator is a realistic space flight simulator for iPad/iPhone

Oh really?

I suppose 'realistic' is the most overused word in simulator advertisements. An iPad doesn't even have the input devices for a realistic simulation of anything.

The thing is also - hardly anybody actually wants to use a realistic simulation of, say, a Space Shuttle. Given how many Orbiter users I've seen complain how hard it is to learn SSU (and I'm talking about a community who knows the basics of spaceflight and orbital mechanics, not some random iPhone user looking for a game), a realistic simulation is even a few steps up.

You need to at least work through ~2000 pages of Manual and Workbooks before you have an idea how to operate a real Space Shuttle. And I don't mean read - I really mean work through. There's a reason why people got a few years of training before flying it.

Now imagine it all on your iPhone, trying to somehow click the correct seequence of buttons in a time-critical situation, or trying to gain some situational awareness on the tiny display.

 

[Hielor]

Oh really?

I suppose 'realistic' is the most overused word in simulator advertisements. An iPad doesn't even have the input devices for a realistic simulation of anything.

The thing is also - hardly anybody actually wants to use a realistic simulation of, say, a Space Shuttle. Given how many Orbiter users I've seen complain how hard it is to learn SSU (and I'm talking about a community who knows the basics of spaceflight and orbital mechanics, not some random iPhone user looking for a game), a realistic simulation is even a few steps up.

You need to at least work through ~2000 pages of Manual and Workbooks before you have an idea how to operate a real Space Shuttle. And I don't mean read - I really mean work through. There's a reason why people got a few years of training before flying it.

Now imagine it all on your iPhone, trying to somehow click the correct seequence of buttons in a time-critical situation, or trying to gain some situational awareness on the tiny display.

I think you're confusing "realistic" (as in, grounded in reality, using real physics, etc) with what are known as "study sims" where all features of the operation of a vehicle are modelled down to the smallest detail.

In order to be a study sim, something must be realistic, but something doesn't need to be a study sim in order to be realistic, as you seem to think.

 

[Thorsten]

I don't think I am confusing anything here. At dictionary.com we get the definition of 'realistic' as

resembling or simulating real life:

thefreedictionary.com has

depicting or emphasizing what is real and actual rather than abstract or ideal

which doesn't really say 'realistic physics only, ignore other aspects'. I've been coding in a flightsim environment for many years now, and I've never heard anyone make the distinction you're trying to make.

There's also an obvious relationship - simulating real physics drives the need to have certain instrumentation aboard and to do certain procedures much as it works in reality.

In a simulation in which your spacecraft is 'always thermally conditioned' and propellant can never freeze, you never need to operate heating elements. In a simulation in which the physics works out correctly, propellant will freeze unless thermally conditioned, and so you need heaters with their respective controls.

If the inertia computation in the simulation is done by summing all masses in the CoG and faking the inertia tensor, you never need to do trim procedures - if the simulation is done correctly, you need things like trim, propellant dump,...

If radio signals always propagate perfectly and inertial units never drift, you don't need to bother with operating navigation equipment much - if their correct physics is implemented and inertial guidance drifts, you need to actually operate receivers correctly to pick up signals etc.

Real spacecraft are complicated because real physics makes them so - so you can't somehow de-correlate grounding in reality and instrumentation/operation as you seem to think.

 

[C3PO]

This reminds me of a comment someone posted on a flight sim forum about MSFS X.
It went something like this: "The elephants are moving! OMG!!!! MSFS X is the most realistic flight sim EVER!!!!!"

 

[Thorsten]

I guess there's two different concepts at play - immersion and realism.

Immersion has to do with how real a scene feels to the user - it doesn't have to be realistic, immersion into a game with made-up physics can be excellent. Most often it's driven by a combination of good graphics, compelling sounds, lack of artifacts like lags or hickups and the right hardware (think cockpit hardware building) - I've seen Flightgear once on a rig with 9 monitors driven by several graphics cards with a real cockpit panel linked to the controls, and the fact that you suddenly see scene in peripheral vision makes a lot of difference. There's even some devices capable of mocking up something like g-forces. And moving elephants probably help with immersion.

In contrast, realism is usually taken to refer to closeness of flight dynamics, operating procedures etc. to reality. FAA approved IFR training software for instance usually has a low degree of immersion but a high degree of realism - the pilot should be able to train the right procedures and get realistic response of the simulation to getting things wrong, but it's not required that the graphics looks particularly compelling.

The over-usage of 'realism' in simulator descriptions is imo an advertisement trick - who wouldn't rather be the guy who can say 'I can land a Space Shuttle in this realistic simulation' than the guy who can say 'I can land this thing that really looks like a Space Shuttle in this cool arcade game with simplified flight dynamics' ?

It's a common theme - there's far more people who want to be able to (or at least be able to claim to) do something than to learn something.

 

[Urwumpe]

Usually I am the crusader of realism here but.... there have to be limits. Unless you have a standing with your game, that people buy new hardware when you release your software (Wing Commander was a good excuse for new hardware back then), you need to compromise and only use what you can get.

And seriously: Realism without immersion has no soul.

 

[Thorsten]

I'm sorry, you lost me. Usually it's immersion which is hardware-demanding, not realism (99.9% or more of the computation cycles spent in a modern sim are typically rendering related).

Also, I'm not for or against more realism (I have a personal preference for high realism, but that's just my preference) - I'm against labeling a game as realistic simulation.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm sorry, you lost me. Usually it's immersion which is hardware-demanding, not realism (99.9% or more of the computation cycles spent in a modern sim are typically rendering related).

:rofl::rofl:

And still there are WAY more of the GPU cycles available. Also, counting cycles is something that last worked well on an Atari ST after you killed the operating system.

But in a world, where you have a multitude of configuration options messing into the available cycles, you can be luckily if you can at least properly define minimal requirements.

And a cheap trick with shader code does a lot of immersion for the cycles.

 

[jedidia]

Usually it's immersion which is hardware-demanding

A tabletop traveller session would like to disagree with you. Several of them, actually! :lol:

I'm against labeling a game as realistic simulation.

A simulation always has a scope. For example, the main scope of Orbiter is newtonian physics. And in that scope, Orbiter is damn realistic. It's not realistic in the scope of spacecraft controlls, or spacecraft systems, or medical sideeffects of zero-G or whatever. But to say that since it doesn't model reality in each and every way, it shouldn't be called realistic, is missing the point. Orbiter is very realistic in what it sets out to simulate, and does a lot of abstraction outside that scope, because that's how simulation works.

 

[Thorsten]

I guess I quite agree with your statement about the scope of a simulation (which kind of also distinguishes a simulation from a game where the scope is less clear).

Edit: Since immersion and realism is something I'm rather interested in, perhaps yet a few remarks.

First, let me clarify that while I think that the degree of realism of any simulator can be objectively determined by comparison with reality, the degree of realism people enjoy or find useful is a matter of taste and practice.

A simplified simulation of some aspects gives one time to focus on the essentials and avoid getting lost in details. The Orbiter stock Atlantis is not a particularly realistic spacecraft by any measure, but it gives a hands-on picture of how orbital mechanics with something with the gross capabilities of the Shuttle works out. And you do not need to work through 2500 pages to fly her. It's why people training to be airliner pilots learn flying on a single-prop GA craft - to avoid information overload trying to understand MFDs and the autopilot and just focus on how a plane flies.

Also, just having fun and goofing around with a simulation is as legitimate as use case as professional-grade training. I really don't want to take a stand either way - I have my preference, others have theirs. None is better than the other.

Second, from many conversations, what leads to good immersion is also very different for different people. For many it's graphics and eye-candy. Others tell me it's 60 fps steady, no lags, delayed frames or anything, it's all in the smoothness, visual quality is otherwise irrelevant. Yet others need their home-build cockpit with yoke, pedals and four monitors. Yet others swear on view shaking effects by minute g-forces and such like. On FSWeekend, I talked to a guy who told me it's sounds - he can't stand generic engine sounds, it has to be a high-fidelity recording of a real engine sound and real ATC procedures.

What works for me personally is usually faithfulness to physics (I know way too much of how things ought to be, I expect certain behavior and if the sim doesn't react as I expect, I get disappointed), good graphics and (perhaps most importantly) a sense of depth. I enjoy feeling that when using the sim, I am just scratching the tip of the iceberg, that if push comes to shove, I can really go through the procedure in the pilot manual and re-start that engine in mid-air, that me flicking fuel valve switches really does something meaningful. Depth, as in there's much more to the simulation than I'm currently seeing.

Third, personally I see Orbiter as a platform and as such not to be judged for realism. Given the multitude of addons, anything else makes no sense. I can judge realism of SSU vs. Shuttle Fleet and they're different, but they both run with Orbiter.

It may be that the platform imposes certain limits on what is possible (for instance, I have the suspicion X-Plane's way of deriving flight dynamics from the 3d shape in real time can't be good beyond a point, otherwise there'd be no computational fluid dynamics or wind tunnel testing) - some platforms are very flexible and extensible, others are fairly rigid. So it's not like the question is completely separate from the platform, but fairly. Even if you have the most sophisticated simulation platform imaginable, 'garbage in, garbage out' is still valid - if you feed bad input data, you'll get bad results. More often than not, it's lack of input data that limits realism, not lack of computing power.

And last but not least, having said all that, I prefer to learn what I really get with a piece of software from descriptions. If I'm looking for a highly realistic simulation and download (or - gasp - buy) something advertized as such and it turns out to be a game with cool graphics, then I feel cheated. A realistic simulation is something you can do science with, something which prepares you for the real thing. I've once made the experience to get a ride in an airplane I knew from the simulation, and when being offered the controls, I felt immediately at ease taking over and flying it into the approach ATC vectored us into. And that's what distinguishes a simulation from a game in my book.

 

[C3PO]

I guess I quite agree with your statement about the scope of a simulation (which kind of also distinguishes a simulation from a game where the scope is less clear).

I usually call it a "game" if the goal(s) is set by the program, and a "simulator" if the goal is set by the user. There are some that fall in the gray area, but I'm not really bothered by the label. You could argue that anything done for recreation is a game, but that would make chess a simulator for pro chess players.

 

[jroly]

I remember some people complaining about NASSP when trying to align the sextant and being unable to do so in conjunction with the AGC emulator because the starmap Orbiter uses has changed slightly from 50 years ago so it doesn't align properly. Now that is realism

 

[FlyingSinger]

This is a fascinating discussion but I just want to point out that the whole "realism" thread emanated from a quote "Space Simulator is a realistic space flight simulator for iPad/iPhone" -- a quote that came from the app developer's website.

Marketing is another dimension here with its own metrics and its own version of "truth." Anyone developing an app in which some attention is paid to visuals and physics -- and especially one that requires some study and which doesn't have obvious game-like goals -- is likely to make the claim of "realistic." To which you should reply, "compared to what?" Compared to the real Gemini or Apollo spacecraft? Certainly not. Compared to other iPad/iPhone apps that purport to be about space? Maybe.

I'm not arguing for the "actual realism" of that app, just saying that in the domain of trying to convince people to part with their $4.99 for an app, it's not a crazy thing to say. It does distinguish that app from many others. To me it seems that Space Simulator (iOS) is actually an iPad emulation of Orbiter! But the screen shots from the in-work Steam version are quite impressive. Who knows what it will be like to "fly" or "play" or whatever you do with these .exe things.

 

[Thorsten]

Marketing is another dimension here with its own metrics and its own version of "truth.

... which is pretty much what I'm criticizing. If you let the words 'clean Diesel engine' be defined by marketing, you get... you know what in the end.

So no, there's no different versions of truth. as far as I am concerned.