Poll Spacecraft3 vessels in other simulators?

[4throck]

Thanks

Will certainly look into it.

 

[Artlav]

Will certainly look into it.

If SC3 vessel loading cause crashed, re-download the file - there was a bug, i've re-uploaded it today.

 

[4throck]

Gave it a quick 5 minute trial and liked it VERY much!

Constructive criticism:

-It works with SC3 vessels, but rcs performance is too strong, and the atmosphere isn't inducing as much drag as it should. In space it performs OK, but still a bit different from Orbiter. Animations are missing, it lacks normalmaps and there are transparency issues.
- I like the overall performance and the visuals, but did struggle with the key set. I chose Orbiter but some keys are off.
-Terrain is good, gives a nice sense of scale and speed. The interface is powerful, but personally I'd prefer a dock or a normal dropdown menu.
-MFDs are also quite nice, specially the map.


Time permitting, i'll test it some more.

Personally, I think you should concentrate development on atmospheric flight and specially surface roving.
What you have already does that, and it sets it apart from Orbiter. That's the direction you should go.

So next step (in my opinion) is to get the solar system there, and add some real terrain (same as Orulex) to it.
Then add a rover and let the user find it's way down to Vallis Marineris bottom. If that works, add a simple power system simulation to it (solar panel angle) to provide some challenge.
That sort of thing will attract add-on developers, and expand upon the existing Orbiter community.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[Artlav]

Animations are missing

Specific animations, or all animations?
Can you provide specific examples?

There are control issues so far - all the keys are in a menu instead of being keyboard-mapped.

it lacks normalmaps and there are transparency issues.

Normal maps?
SC3 vessels support these?
Or have i missed some new development?
In OGLA you need to define normal maps in msh file.

- I like the overall performance and the visuals, but did struggle with the key set. I chose Orbiter but some keys are off.

Which keys exactly?
Are they remapable ones, or something else?

I'd prefer a dock or a normal dropdown menu.

What should it look like? Any examples in other programs?
You mean terrain settings menu, or something else?

So next step (in my opinion) is to get the solar system there, and add some real terrain (same as Orulex) to it.

Using real data is one thing i really don't want to do.
It would add a hell of a lot of special-case code and hacks, and can easily pop the performance down the drain.

What about a procedurally generated solar system-like location?
I.e. like in KSP, where they have something akin to our solar system, only fictional.

Just my 2 cents!

Thanks!
Every cent count here.

 

[4throck]

There are control issues so far - all the keys are in a menu instead of being keyboard-mapped.

» Then I certainly missed that, my wrong.


Normal maps?
SC3 vessels support these?
Or have i missed some new development?
In OGLA you need to define normal maps in msh file.

» just do it like Orbiter does: for each texture.dds it tries to load a texture_norm.dds if they exist. The meshes are unchanged, there's no extra configuration.


Which keys exactly?
Are they remapable ones, or something else?

» I remapped the time acceleration to R|T as usual.


What should it look like? Any examples in other programs?
You mean terrain settings menu, or something else?

» Like old school Office! A menubar on top with dropdown menus / sub menus. If they then open toolboxes, fine. But having all options arranged in a menu is always good.


Using real data is one thing i really don't want to do.
It would add a hell of a lot of special-case code and hacks, and can easily pop the performance down the drain.
What about a procedurally generated solar system-like location?
I.e. like in KSP, where they have something akin to our solar system, only fictional.

» That is up to you :tiphat:
I'm only indicating what would make me want to develop for SW. Real terrain and real missions would.
Kerbal is fine, but... I already have Kerbal and don't feel motivated to do any add-ons for it.

I think you should take MSSpaceSim as reference. That one had real planets + fantasy worlds.
You already have a good engine for extrasolar worlds. Just add our real solar system using Orulex, the data is on OH and it works.

I'll stress again that there's no software (certainly not free) that will allow you to rove around real planets, other than some things done using GoogleEarth API. And none that offers extrasolar and solar system at the same time with realistic spacecrafts.

 

[Artlav]

I remapped the time acceleration to R|T as usual.

They should be at R and T out of the box in any key set.
Was that not the case?

Like old school Office! A menubar on top with dropdown menus / sub menus. If they then open toolboxes, fine. But having all options arranged in a menu is always good.

I still don't follow.

Are we talking main menu?
Options?
Something else?

Just add our real solar system using Orulex, the data is on OH and it works.

"Just" isn't the right word here.
You won't believe how much a dirty hack Orulex is.

I'm afraid real vessels in real places is simply not Spaceway's area of application.

I suppose what you want is Orbiter, but stretched to the whole universe like SW?
So you could start on Earth, and fly to the stars, or at least have something to land on on other planets in the solar system?

I'll stress again that there's no software (certainly not free) that will allow you to rove around real planets, other than some things done using GoogleEarth API.

That does not sound like my job any more.
Next Orbiter version would feature both terrain and collision detection, in it's engine by Martins himself.
Which will give you that, and in a much better engine for the task.

 

[4throck]

I understand your points. It's your software, you do whatever you want! :tiphat:

Still think that, while your procedural approach is elegant, it offers little replay value for a simulation. If you build a game on top of it, it will work. But then the focus will be on game mechanics, not on the planets/universe.


The next Orbiter will have terrain, but limited to the solar system.

I miss the old Microsoft Space Sim where you could go to other galaxies, nebulae, etc, etc. That is what I want! But I think that's too much for a one man team....


Regarding Orulex, don't know why you look down on it! It's brilliant, it works and it has it's uses. I have an Orbiter install just for it !


» For the menus, here's an old school Amiga menu for you:

Just put everything there. As you have it, your tool boxes cover the simulator window!

» I chose Orbiter keyset, but the key list on screen showed R|+ for some reason. I remapped + to T and it worked. Probably my wrong.

 

[Artlav]

For the menus, here's an old school Amiga menu for you.

Just put everything there. As you have it, your tool boxes cover the simulator window!

I've been working on cleaning up the interface, is that the right direction?

What exactly is covering the window, and how putting it into a menu could prevent it?
The menu would still have to open into something that covers the window, no?

I miss the old Microsoft Space Sim where you could go to other galaxies, nebulae, etc, etc. That is what I want!

Go starting from Earth?
That is the important point, right?

---------- Post added 16th Jan 2014 at 01:39 ---------- Previous post was 15th Jan 2014 at 23:26 ----------

Also, time to bid the Orbiter style MFDs farewell.
Refubrished them to use mouse controls, and removed the "buttons".

Makes it even cleaner:

 

[4throck]

Like the new interface layout. Much cleaner yes.
Of course, the menus will open boxes/windows, no problem there. But keeping things minimized at the corners of the screen is a good solution.

As for the MFDs, I liked the originals. You can try to make them draggable to other screen positions, or at least have that defined for each spacecraft. For a lander the MFDs could go on top.


Yes, star on Earth is logical.
That's how they do in documentaries and teaching: you start from what's familiar » instant appeal.
Kerbal takes a similar approach...

You can do the same just by using the background image while loading.
Put a schematic of the starting solar system there, something to orient the player.
Create a simple backstory to give purpose to things. Remember, you know what's in SW's universe, we don't have a clue!

 

[Artlav]

Sorry to turn this into a Spaceway discussion thread, but here went more feedback than i had in a year. :embarrassed:

You can do the same just by using the background image while loading.
Put a schematic of the starting solar system there, something to orient the player.
Create a simple backstory to give purpose to things. Remember, you know what's in SW's universe, we don't have a clue!

That is a very good point, actually.
Make a proper starting point. A reference point. A bit of backstory, a marble lost among the infinity.

So far all the planets are called the same latin-ish numeral combinations. Unavoidable on the scale.

It's high time to give player an option to name planets, and to make a home base.

Of course, that means giving 50-odd planets, moons, and asteroids proper names...
Cue unlimited imagination.

One of the gas giants:

And the whole Home system:

And add some schematics and vector graphics, to give things meaning.

Thanks, that sounds like it would help a lot!

As for the MFDs, I liked the originals.

All the hotkeys still work, and they look almost exactly the same.
Only now you can click on things to operate them.
What exactly makes you like them less?