Question What is the Orbiter Visualization Project

[Cornflake]

Did you edit the Orbiter_NG shortcut that came with the Orbiter beta release?

Well, no, however I made my own shortcut to the Orbiter.exe located in the \modules\server directory (Which AFAIK is what the Orbiter_NG shortcut is). The only reason I didn't edit the existing shortcut is because Windows has to sit and think when you're right-clicking on a shortcut that can't find it's target which gets annoying. However I'm pretty sure OGLA runs under the normal executable... I was just checking to make sure.

P.S. I may just have to test Orbiter with the OGLA module under Vista. Since Orbiter's framerate is abysmal in comparison to XP (Even with ClearType disabled), It'll be interesting how Orbiter performs with an OpenGL client. I've done some testing and OpenGL seems to perform a bit better on Vista with my card. However I still don't know why Orbiter's framerate is so hampered under Vista because DX7 doesn't perform that much different on my system between XP and Vista. Games like Call of Duty 2 that support DX9 and DX7 don't seem to show a huge hit between the two. I wonder why Orbiter's DX7 implementation does... :dry:

 

[Cornflake]

Ok, Well I just did some testing. The framerate in the beta under Vista is much more consistent than Orbiter 2006P1 (ie the FPS does not dip into lows like the 40s as much) but there's still a long way to go. The overall framerate in Orbiter is 1/3rd in Vista than what it is in XP, (ie on my hardware around 120 as opposed to 350) on average. I used the Hubble orbit deployment scenario and the Satellite launch scenario for testing. Usually when raising FOV to 60 degrees and turning on planetarium mode when deploying the Hubble FPS will hit around 45 in Vista but in the beta it stayed more at 60-80.

Better, but not what it should be. And also the startup screen still looks very pixelated under Vista as well (and yes I was running full resolution on my monitor). I hope Martin is working on optimizing Orbiter under Vista because we can't play under XP forever.

 

[Artlav]

Well, no, however I made my own shortcut to the Orbiter.exe located in the modulesserver directory (Which AFAIK is what the Orbiter_NG shortcut is). The only reason I didn't edit the existing shortcut is because Windows has to sit and think when you're right-clicking on a shortcut that can't find it's target which gets annoying. However I'm pretty sure OGLA runs under the normal executable... I was just checking to make sure.

If you define normal executable as orbiter.exe, then no graphic client will work with it - it just not support anything but inline graphics, so you should use the orbiter_ng shortcut.

I don't have any modules to activate when launching Orbiter_NG.

That indicates that you didn't set the shortcut properly, if you insist on avoiding right-clicking it, making a new one should work too.

If you have a problem setting it, the properly set short-cut should look something like that, "Start in" line is the center of the issue:

 

[Cornflake]

Oh I see. I wasn't aware that it required resources in the main directory that would only be called if the start in field was pointing to the main directory. I was thinking they would be called reguardless of the Start In directory, as long as the proper executable was opened. I got it working now Thanks.

P.S. I don't "insist on avoiding right-clicking it", I just figured why waste a bunch of time for Windows to open the shortcut since It couldn't find the target when I could just make a new shortcut in half the time. if Martin would of mentioned that the Start in box had to be pointed to the main directory in the beta readme, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[hypersonic]

Which Graphics engine as default?

Even though the Graphics engine is being split from the physics 'core'.
I'd imagine / expect that Orbiter will still have to ship with some kind of Graphics engine as part of its baseline install, to keep it playable 'out of the box'.

Will this be some kind of 'new' engine, or something based upon Direct X 7 like before?

Cheers
Hyper

 

[DaveS]

Even though the Graphics engine is being split from the physics 'core'.
I'd imagine / expect that Orbiter will still have to ship with some kind of Graphics engine as part of its baseline install, to keep it playable 'out of the box'.

Will this be some kind of 'new' engine, or something based upon Direct X 7 like before?

Cheers
Hyper

It's the same one as before.

 

[diegorodriguez]

The current view of Orbiter Visualization Project reminds me the one with FlightGear, but way round.

In FlightGear we start with one solid graphics platform, OpenGL. Then, we plug it several physics engines.

In Orbiter Visualization Project, we only have one physics engine, and pretend it to talk to OpenGL, DirectX, etc.

I don't see the point developping DirectX or other platform apart from OpenGL. I would focus on the simulation engines, if we want to get something serious.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Coolhand]

No.

Aside from the fact that we all like prettier graphics - you can say maybe you don't but you wouldn't want the graphics to be any worse would you?

Keeping up to date, or somewhere close to it in terms of graphical development is immensely important. If you want to keep drawing people in to the orbiter community, keep them hooked so they get into addon developing and making the whole experience richer. You'll draw in more artists who'll build more cool looking addons, existing developers will make their new models look better. You'll keep orbiter in computer games magazines - in a years time, perhaps now, no one will want to do a 2 page spread on this amazing peice of freeware because the images won't be nice enough to use and opportunities will be missed.

Without any graphical updates, orbiter will begin to dwindle and die, or at least slowly be reduced to a tiny hardcore community. Things move fast in the world of computer graphics and orbiter has already been left behind, OVP has the possibility of making an immense leap to catch up with the state of the art or at least get close to it.

I'm not saying this should be at the expense of simulation, far from it and no one is saying that and the split of the graphics and physics should allow Martins to speed the development of the simulation aspects while others take over the graphics.

Basically, giving the graphics development over to another team is only going to improve the simulation, incase you haven't been paying attention, no one but orbiter's creator is working on the physics.

Both should keep progressing, and sometimes one will progress faster than the other. But if you want something 'serious' imho it has to look serious too, this helps people to connect to the simulation in a more meaningful way, we are after all, mainly visual creatures, its how we absorb the majority of our information.

 

[tl8]

I mean what is bad about DX10 orbiter

 

[diegorodriguez]

I see you took me wrong.

I have never said graphics are not important, quite the opposite.

Since the beginning, I did hit Martin because using DirectX instead of OpenGL. Later on, I faced some of his bodyguards because proposing Orbitersim going open source.

Now, this seems like a project to open the source at least partially. I am pretty sure Martin does not like that kind of 'covered' code opening.

So I see this visualization project won't work until the core itself is clearly isolated, OpenGL took as only graphics library and other physics engines available.

 

[dbeachy1]

I don't see the point developping DirectX or other platform apart from OpenGL. I would focus on the simulation engines, if we want to get something serious.

Does that make any sense?

Well, that is exactly what Martin's goal is here: to separate the graphics layer from the physics core so he can just work on the physics going forward. The open-source graphics clients will be developed and maintained by the Orbiter development community. In fact, both the DX9 and OpenGL graphics clients are open-source and already in development, so I don't see why we should limit Orbiter to OpenGL. What Martin is working on right now is separating the Orbiter core from its graphics layer and releasing the DX7 graphics client code as a reference that the DX9 and OpenGL graphics projects can use as a basis for their new code. This separation has to occur regardless of which graphics clients are developed, so it is time well spent.

Also, dropping DirectX would cause all the existing vessels that render their own custom 2D instrument panels to not work at all in the new Orbiter version, and each of those vessels would require a large amount of work from its author to port to OpenGL. It's just not going to happen...

 

[Coolhand]

I see you took me wrong.

I have never said graphics are not important, quite the opposite.

You may have never said that graphics are not important explicitly, but you certainly didn't say the opposite.

 

[EliNaut]

....2: Installed Orbiter 2007 Beta...

O_O
Wowee an 07 Beta? Howd I miss that? x_x
I've seen shots for the "Next Patch" on the main orbiter site with the amazing level of texturing... is that what that was for?
Any drawbacks?
Or just additions?

~EliNaut

 

[diegorodriguez]

When do you think we'll see the 1st beta of this server-graphics client?


-----Posted Added-----


Also, separating the core (non Open Source) from the graphics clients (Open Source), will make developping other pure Open Source engines possible. Is that true? Would Martin allow that to happen?

 

[DaveS]

When do you think we'll see the 1st beta of this server-graphics client?

You can download the latest public beta here: http://orbitervis.wiki.sourceforge.net/OrbiterPublicBeta

 

[SpaceNut]

Well, I downloaded and played with the beta for the first time a few minutes ago, and I can say there's quite an improvement in frame rates for me. I have a nVidia 7600GS, which is a so so card, lower end, but newer, and pretty decent. Obviously the graphics improvements are there yet, but kudos to the team for getting it to where it is so far. Looks very promising, and can't wait to see more as it develops...

Again, great job to the team, keep up the great work !

 

[Poscik]

Sorry, that I'm refreshing old thread.
I was working today on realistic sunsets/sunrises. This is how it looks now:


Eventually I made something like final version, with correct scaling etc. Pics below.

Full sunrise:

Early sunset/late sunrise:

Sunset/Sunrise: