What kind of add-on do you think would change Orbiter forever?

[jedidia]

the ability to 'jump' to that time and have all your movement projected to that time.

You can do that with the scenario editor

 

[dutchpirate]

Quite so, but to have it in an MFD that shows ETA to target and selection buttons to jump to predefined time points, halfway, 75%, etc.

 

[Urwumpe]

One small idea I have from studying the internal workings of MIL-STD-6016 (Link 16, TADIL-J) is a message based communication system for vessels, that could also be used by MFDs, as long as the vessel itself has a communication terminal installed and supports the required protocol over clbkGeneric. Could be used for example for economy simulations, in which you could request merchant data from another vessel...like what price O2 currently has at a base.

As long as you only do short messages, and don't try full data streams at high data rate, you could even do time delays and line of sight limitations. And it wouldn't even need special plug-ins, all you need to use it is to include the terminal object in your vessel, all the simulation stuff would happen inside it.

 

[hypersonic]

Interstellar Travel seamlessly integrated... Maybe simulate only stars within a 10-12 light year radius for starters... of course it will also need to 'simulate' those stars' 'approx' galactic motion as well as our own sun.

This is something that Martin 'has' actually hinted at during an interview he gave around the time of the launch of Orb 2010

http://techhaze.com/2010/06/interview-with-orbiter-sim-creator-martin-schweiger/

The following answer can be found under the question:
What do you think are Orbiter’s main strengths (and limitations) as a flight simulator?
To Quote Martin: "At the other extreme, towards interstellar flight, there is not much support yet, but this may change in the future. This may also require the step from Newtonian to relativistic modelling, which would certainly be an interesting challenge. "

Will be FAB

 

[jedidia]

of course it will also need to 'simulate' those stars' 'approx' galactic motion as well as our own sun.

Considering how little they actually move relative to each other that would be overkill. It takes thousands of years to make any real difference.

 

[Urwumpe]

Considering how little they actually move relative to each other that would be overkill. It takes thousands of years to make any real difference.

Some stars move really seriously relative to Earth, in time spans that are even with fictional technology common. If you need ten months, but the target moved by 40 AU in the same time, you can quickly get into a problem... one light-year is just ~69000 AU.

 

[jedidia]

I don't think we have any within the above requested 10 to 12 lightyears, though, but I might be wrong.

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't think we have any within the above requested 10 to 12 lightyears, though, but I might be wrong.

Barnard's Star? Kapteyn's star or Teegarden's star are just a bit out of the 12 ly.

 

[Quaser]

There's a rendering engine called Outerra, being worked on. They have shown off flight, ground, and(somewhat) space flight, but the engine is still being worked on.

They currently use the JSBSim Library for vehicle simulation, but....
It's a commercial engine, so could be seen as a possible competitor to Orbiter.
Unless someone wants to go licence the engine and release a sim for free. (Although there is strong interest into making an easily extensible sim based off it)

I'm just saying, what this engine has to offer is on my wishlist for Orbiter.

http://outerra.com/
For clarification, I'm saying as an addon rendering engine

 

[Rob]

Not only that - the processing power of an iPod isn't enough to handle the complex demands of orbit stability. Most mobile devices run on a fairly low power ARM chipset, it has to be low power because anything high power kills battery life and your consumers protest.

Imagine having 3G, Wifi, bluetooth enabled then fire up orbiter iPod. Your battery life would last about 20 minutes.

Anyway, I digress. Orbiter on Apple IOS, Android, Symbian, Windows mobile or Meego isn't really an option.

Agreed!!

 

[Aldrasio]

Animated textures.

It would take a chunk of RAM to work right, but using it you could make a planet's appearance vary by the season, or make aurorae, or watch the clouds move over Earth or any of the Jovians. I think, if nothing else, that would make Orbiter look incredible.

 

[Urwumpe]

Animated textures.

It would take a chunk of RAM to work right, but using it you could make a planet's appearance vary by the season, or make aurorae, or watch the clouds move over Earth or any of the Jovians. I think, if nothing else, that would make Orbiter look incredible.

Already possible if a DLL simply supports them. You simply need a larger texture and change the (U,V) coordinates.

 

[Phillips]

A autopilot MFD or module, that could control dockings, landing, liftoff, and where the spacecraft is going. Launch autopilots are common, but the rest are hard to find. AutoFCS refuses to work with Orbiter 2010 and shows nothing in the landing field runway.
That would benefit orbiter is a way.

 

[Izack]

A autopilot MFD or module, that could control dockings, landing, liftoff, and where the spacecraft is going. Launch autopilots are common, but the rest are hard to find. AutoFCS refuses to work with Orbiter 2010 and shows nothing in the landing field runway.
That would benefit orbiter is a way.

In progress for a while now:
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=14704

 

[Milenko44]

It may or may not be being worked on, but I think water would be cool.

 

[Agent0ne]

Add-ons Suggestions...

Good day;

It is nice to see several people are focussing on pertinent add-ons!

As a "full-time-long-time-dedicated" user (space pilot/nav officer),
here is my personal view on this topic.

1- I still stand with my initial position:

"The innerent complexity to Orbiter must be respected and even enhenced.
Because, this is a simulator which is worth being called one!
And, for once, this is for adults (mature people).".

2- And I still consider it is best to focus on improving the inherent dynamic within space objects (bodies of influence) and artificial objects (ship and components), instead of wasting time and efforts on "multi-player template".

- As suggested here -

Because, realistically speaking, real adequate Online Multi-Player Template for ORBITER will not be possible untill each and everyone (users) AND the entire internet network are all connected with fiber optic cables. And that will not happen any soon.

ORBITER should not trade its complexity for accessing Internet Online Multiplayers realm. Like many have said, there are already lots of "online multi-player shooting pseudo-simulators", for those who enjoy that.
On the other hand, I think those who really enjoy ORBITER as it is (a true realistic simulator) are a bit older and they like it because it is realistic.

3- Time-Warp:
I consider using "time acceleration" is not paying respect to the quality of ORBITER. There are vessels that can reach high enough speeds for travelling between planets (inside planetary system) in an acceptable and realistic delay. The "constant fast-pace desire" isn't realistic at all and it has no place in ORBITER.

* One can always let ORBITER run on the PC while doing other things. That is how ORBITER should be utilized in the first place (always running), because everything moves! Space is "alive" (astronomy) and that is essential to realism. To the extreme; get another PC and let one run Orbiter full time.

* Travelling between stars (planetary systems) is mostly useless (it is empty), that is why there are "WormHoles" (for accessing stars; planetary systems). Once there, Piloting and Navigating skills are mandatory.

SpaceFlight Guidelines (.pdf)

* In space, we don't need that much detailed and high resolution imageries. Work should be focussing on adding and improving Interactivity within the existing Orbiter Template.


As I stated in my last post, "For depicting reality, [bodies of influence and] the physical structures [vessels and components] has to offer interactivity.".
Therefore, Add-ons should incorporate "properties" that are suggested in that last post.

4- Furthermore, because (as for many, it seams) my ORBITER system is so much filled up with fleets, add-ons, and numerous edited parts of my own, it would take me 2 months working 12 hours per day everyday for re-installing everything (upgrading), and adding to that probably having to change my PC and graphic cards, I still keep (and I will keep) utilizing the Full Orbiter 2006 version. And I see (in forum) there are many long time users doing the same. Therefore, it would be awesome if experienced developers keep on presenting Orbiter 2006 versions to their Add-ons.


Aside from these suggestions, since 2006 ORBITER has really changed my life on the "philosophic level" as it did bring realistic space travelling accessible nowadays. And for that I will always be grateful to Martin Schweiger for creating it and to experienced add-ons developers, whom are altogether allowing Fantasy to Meet Reality for me.

Regards,
Agent0ne.

 

[Carmen A]

Artlav is working on an industrial simulation, which is in quite early stages of development (see Addon Dev't forums).

I like his idea of a basic production system because it gives an excuse for me to fly from point A to point B all over the world in order to supply the components to build a spacecraft in orbit. It adds a sense of objectivity and realism to Orbiter which is otherwise a huge sandbox where I have to imagine mission taskings. I prefer scripted scenarios

Besides in Orbiter's (literally) open source world, if I need a factory in say, Japan, to fly to, I'll build the terrain and place the buildings myself and release it as an addon

 

[Artlav]

Artlav is working on an industrial simulation

I am? :crystalball2:
How come i'm not aware of it?

 

[Nazban]

For me theres only 1 addon which will change everything for the better. Ship and building collisions.

 

[Bonanza123d]

For me theres only 1 addon which will change everything for the better. Ship and building collisions.

^^ What he said. I think it would be perfect. Can someone already make one already?