OHM Relativistic Warp MFD 1.5

[craigh]

Hi,

I'd like to second iceman2000mv's request for a detailed description on loading the fuel cargos. Maybe an example config for a random vessel so it could be emulated?

I'd rather not mess with my existing configs without some sort of direction to aim at.

Thanks ahead of time!
CraigH

 

[Loru]

Hi there, I'm getting the same issue, Module showing and activated on home PC but not showing in MFD list, funny thing is work PC does not have the same issue, Home PC is Vista Home Premium, Work PC is XP. Any ideas???

Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Redistributable Package (x86)
Microsoft Visual C++ 2008 Redistributable Package (x86)

I think some those packages will help. Had the same problem with Arlav's UAP.

 

[RKSNIK]

Still no joy

Thank you for the advice but after downloading and install still no joy
I'm have a fresh install of 2009P1 plus UCG0, DGIV2 and Orb sound with nothing else apart from the RWAP MFD ?????

 

[DoyleChris]

Not Working

I have tried it on both 2009 and 2006 and both wont work. I have downloaded the C++ packages but still no joy.

 

[iceman2000mv]

Hi,

I'd like to second iceman2000mv's request for a detailed description on loading the fuel cargos. Maybe an example config for a random vessel so it could be emulated?

I'd rather not mess with my existing configs without some sort of direction to aim at.

Thanks ahead of time!
CraigH

I found the answer. With this you don't need to add cargo fuel anymore. Just go in the "Config/RWarp" folder and open the RWarp.cfg file with a text editor (Notepad, Wordpad, Word etc.).
Now just cange FALSE into TRUE in the next line and you're done. Don't forget to save.
";This allows the vessel to have a warp drive without requiring RWarpDrive and RWarpCap cargos
FreeTravel=FALSE"
Now all the ships have the Relativistic Warp MFD and may I say it's great. Just have a look at all those planets wizz by. It looks just like IWar2 but much better because you get to land on them.

Thanks again for the addon.:tiphat:

 

[hribek]

Oh blast! You beat me to it. Nice work.

It would be great if the visual part could be made as realistic as possible. Maybe documenting how exactly it works at present time would be nice, too (or is it only the FOV?)

 

[nicker43]

RWarp Version 1.1

VERSION 1.1
Fixes bug with changing views or panels
Added revision in title
Shortened callouts (Thank you 20 Litre for the audio editting!)
Added 2 second break between callouts to prevent them from stepping on each other


I've also included a scenario that has an XR5 with capacitor cargo. The UCGO based ships are going to be more difficult because they don't use attachments, and I don't know of any way of getting a pointer to an existing UCGO class to query docked cargo from an MFD. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction.

As far as the orbit insertion requests, wouldn't that make it too easy? If more people want this feature, I'll look into doing it.

The issues with the module not appearing in orbiter have me stumped. Is there some compiler or linker option that should be set (VC 2008)?

Also, is this the best place to put updates? Should I do a separate upload?

 

[nicker43]

Oh blast! You beat me to it. Nice work.

It would be great if the visual part could be made as realistic as possible. Maybe documenting how exactly it works at present time would be nice, too (or is it only the FOV?)

Currently, it is just FOV that is increased proportional to gamma. That's why I hope we can have some sort of relativity simulation in the next version (OGLA?), sort of like this:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgAII_crHHc"]YouTube- Special Relativity Simulator[/nomedia]

Notice in the video how strong the effects are at relatively low gamma (<5). Using those effects at RWarp speeds, we would quickly be starring at a single white pixel in the center of the screen. This I can probably simulate.

 

[craigh]

Thanks all, (iceman in particular)! Looking forward to trying it out this evening.

Craigh

 

[scurvydog00]

1.1 works for me now. Very fun add on thanks for the effort!

 

[Cairan]

For a tiny nit-pick, yes, detecting the planet, moon, base or vessel is located with a planet or moon in-between would be very cool, but hey, what are navigator paid for if not to ... navigate a course without crashing into hazards!

Apart from that, this add-on is A++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[nicker43]

Just a comment, it would be great if you used the object radius API function when we select a planet or a moon without a base, so that when we enter the distance from the object to drop out of warp, it calculates it based on the Distance Above Surface instead of Distance From Center.

And for a tiny nit-pick, yes, detecting the planet, moon, base or vessel is located with a planet or moon in-between would be very cool, but hey, what are navigator paid for if not to ... navigate a course without crashing into hazards!

Apart from that, this add-on is A++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually, the distance from planet does take the planet radius into account. Have you seen it do something else?

 

[RKSNIK]

Hi There, Just fired up the old PC and downloaded v1.1 of RWarp and it works!!! YAY.
MFD now present will try it out later.

 

[Cairan]

Actually, the distance from planet does take the planet radius into account. Have you seen it do something else?

Actually no, I had not tried the distance from planet yet, but now that I have, I stand corrected. However, you need to correct your documentation On page 2 of the PDF:

If a base is not selected, the target is the planet or moon center.

That led me to believe it was behaving in reference to the body's center, not it's surface.

I should have tested this behavior before hand... but at least I caught this in the doc!

---------- Post added at 03:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:16 AM ----------

Just some side notes after trying out Version 1.1...

As a small request, it would be nice if the callouts could be optionnaly set to report the Lorentz time dilation factor... would give a "Star Trek" feel to your MFD, but more importantly, remove a "hella" nines when going up to 0.999999999C

Something along the lines of doing Gamma (Lorentz) factors callouts instead of the ratio of light speed... "Gamma 200" just prior to reaching 0.99999c sure has a nice ring to it.

Gamma 100 is reached just shy of 0.99995c
Gamma 50 is just prior to 0.9999c (0.9997998c to be exact)
Gamma 20 is slightly before 0.999c (0.9987c)
Gamma 5 is slightly before 0.99c (0.9797c)
Gamma 2 is slightly before 0.9c (0.87c)

Thanks again for the add-on, it's a real pleasure to use! If you want to put an optional "circular orbit insertion" option in the config, I guess I'd use it, but as it is, it adds challenge to take into account the planet's gravity when "dropping" out of warp, pun intended!

 

[haze39]

Relativistic Warp MFD Rev 1.0

hi
sounds real exiting exploring the outer space,but it does not show up on the MFD display neither on the shuttle-a,or the Delta Glider.

Anybody who has the same problem?.I have the latest orbiter installation,and have activated the module in the modules folder.But no'.

Thanks
haze39:beathead:

 

[donatelo200]

The true speed of this mfd

You do know that this warp drive at max goes around 200x the speed of light.:blink: Witch is insainly fast bacause it would take 8 minutes to travel to the sun from Earth at the speed of light.:lol:

RWarp Version 1.1
Also, is this the best place to put updates? Should I do a separate upload?

Also put v1.1 on OH.(updating it is better than a seperate upload)

 

[tblaxland]

You do know that this warp drive at max goes around 200x the speed of light.:blink: Witch is insainly fast bacause it would take 8 minutes to travel to the sun from Earth at the speed of light.:lol:

For which observer do you base you measurements? I haven't played with this MFD, but for observers on the ship using the MFD (the way this MFD was intended to be used, if I understand it correctly), Lorentz contraction would make the distance to the target (and hence the travel time) much shorter. Since Orbiter does not simulate relativity in any way, shape, or form, one possible avenue for simulating this is to increase the velocity such that the travel time remains consistent with the Lorentz contraction. That means that the velocity in Orbiter's Newtonian universe, as observed by all parties, will be significantly greater than the speed of light.

Considering your example of travelling from the Earth to the Sun, at a speed of 0.9999 c, would take:
L = 150,000,000 km
L' = L x sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = L x 0.0708 = 10,619,918 km
t = L'/v = 10,619,918 km / (0.9999 x 300,000 km/s) = 35 s

To achieve that travel time in a Newtonian universe such as Orbiter, the velocity required would be:
v' = 150,000,000 km / 35 s = 4,285,714 km/s = 14.29 c

Is that consistent with your observations?

 

[nicker43]

For which observer do you base you measurements? I haven't played with this MFD, but for observers on the ship using the MFD (the way this MFD was intended to be used, if I understand it correctly), Lorentz contraction would make the distance to the target (and hence the travel time) much shorter. Since Orbiter does not simulate relativity in any way, shape, or form, one possible avenue for simulating this is to increase the velocity such that the travel time remains consistent with the Lorentz contraction. That means that the velocity in Orbiter's Newtonian universe, as observed by all parties, will be significantly greater than the speed of light.

Considering your example of travelling from the Earth to the Sun, at a speed of 0.9999 c, would take:
L = 150,000,000 km
L' = L x sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = L x 0.0708 = 10,619,918 km
t = L'/v = 10,619,918 km / (0.9999 x 300,000 km/s) = 35 s

To achieve that travel time in a Newtonian universe such as Orbiter, the velocity required would be:
v' = 150,000,000 km / 35 s = 4,285,714 km/s = 14.29 c

Is that consistent with your observations?

Yes, this is exactly how it is done in RWarp. Isn't relativity great?

 

[donatelo200]

For which observer do you base you measurements? I haven't played with this MFD, but for observers on the ship using the MFD (the way this MFD was intended to be used, if I understand it correctly), Lorentz contraction would make the distance to the target (and hence the travel time) much shorter. Since Orbiter does not simulate relativity in any way, shape, or form, one possible avenue for simulating this is to increase the velocity such that the travel time remains consistent with the Lorentz contraction. That means that the velocity in Orbiter's Newtonian universe, as observed by all parties, will be significantly greater than the speed of light.

Considering your example of travelling from the Earth to the Sun, at a speed of 0.9999 c, would take:
L = 150,000,000 km
L' = L x sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = L x 0.0708 = 10,619,918 km
t = L'/v = 10,619,918 km / (0.9999 x 300,000 km/s) = 35 s

To achieve that travel time in a Newtonian universe such as Orbiter, the velocity required would be:
v' = 150,000,000 km / 35 s = 4,285,714 km/s = 14.29 c

Is that consistent with your observations?

I'm basing my observation on how quikely i got to Saturn from Earth.(witch was about 20 sec. including charging) At the speed of light it should take about an hour and a half to get to saturn from Earth. I got the answere from one of the books i have at home.

 

[tblaxland]

I'm basing my observation on how quikely i got to Saturn from Earth.(witch was about 20 sec. including charging) At the speed of light it should take about an hour and a half to get to saturn from Earth. I got the answere from one of the books i have at home.

Yes, and hour and half is about right for the light time from Earth to Saturn:

1,500,000,000 km / 300,000 km/s = 5000 s = approx 1.5 hours.

And this is the correct time that a hypothetical observer would measure if they were stationary with respect to, for example, the Sun's inertial reference frame. But such a measurement does not describe the journey as experienced by the traveller going from Earth to Saturn at such speeds. The traveller would complete the journey in far less time in his own frame of reference.