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

Agent0ne

"When Fantasy Meets Reality".
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Montreal
Website
esfa-board.blogspot.com
Improved Add-Ons...

While I went back to duties in the Alpha system, I still had this topic in mind. I figured out some information from a long-time Space pilot/NAV officer point of view could be useful to some.

There are 3 primary recommendations I would present to Add-On Developers.

A- When you place a ground base (or any facility) on a planet, there is always an inherent distance between the real surface of the planet (the ground) and the items of the facility (buildings, runways, landing pads, etc.). For example, the foundation or basis of a building on the ground actually stands at a distance from the surface of the planet. Because of that, the view from a vessel or from a character at ground-level is not right, it seams you are standing at 300 feet over the ground. This is more than annoying and it brings all sorts of unrealistic difficulties when you are approaching (for landing), when piloting vessels on the ground (like Firefly cargo plates) and over the ground (like the Eagle).

Solution: When you create a ground facility, place a large enough Ground-Plate first, and then position all the items on it. That Ground-Plate (concrete or grass) should be large enough so that the perspective is accurate.

picture.php

Concrete Plates on the ground potitionned by me (config file).


B- The Orbiter simulator program forces us (Vessel pilots and NAV officers) to adopt a different standpoint toward space flight: the Outer Space Flight perspective rather than the usual Earth Bound consideration. Simply because with the correct vessel we have access to all planets inside a solar system, in a relatively acceptable length of time. However, everything depends on the correct configuration of the vessels.

In this context, there are 3 types of vessels:
(aside from Landers, which are ground-vessels, like the MoonHopper and LSTS01/05 series).

(1) Orbiter-Class; vessels that are employed for climbing to orbit, reaching to a space station or a vessel, performing orbital operations and stuff, docking, undocking, de-orbiting (whether there is atmosphere or not), and landing. Like DeltaGlider or Atlantis, Shuttle-A and Eagle. Some are material carriers others are crew transporters. These Orbiter-Class vessels do not need great speed, because they are not meant for leaving orbit toward other planets. [Old detachable-rocketry systems are only meant for launching satellites].

(2) Mid-Range Class; vessels that are employed for travelling from orbit to orbit between 2 or 3 planets close to one an the other (between 10AU and 20AU). Most are carriers (like the Sankukai, the Firefly, LSTS Burchismo series), others are explorers (like the Millenium-Falcon, the TiE series).

The main attributes these Mid-Range Class vessels should have (the carriers) is a cargo hull accessible in space, realistic and pertinent docking ports (many, because they must bring Orbiter-Class and small Mid-Range Class Explorer vessels with them), and most important of all the correct power correlation configuration referring to its size and mass, main and hover engines, and attitude thrusters.

Correct correlation size/mass/power: these Mid-Range Class vessels must be configured for being able to acquire speeds between 5 000Km/sec. (5 000 000m/s) [indicated: Vel 05.00M], and 15 000Km/sec. (15 000 000m/s) [indicated: Vel 15.00M], in less than 1 hour applied full thrust. So they can reach distances between 10AU and 20AU in a relatively acceptable length of time.

(3) Long-Range Class (Interstar); vessels that are employed for travelling from orbit to orbit everywhere on the plane of a planetary system. These are mainly huge carriers because they can reach great distances (between 30AU and 100AU), like the Stardestroyer and the Death-Star. Others are Explorers, like the 1701c. These vessels (Long-Range Class, Interstar) are the most important ones, considering the outer-space perspective. Particularly the Carriers, because they should act as a fleet anchorage or harbour in space during the time they occupy a particular area/orbit. A “Mother-Ship” if you want.

The main attributes these Long-Range Class vessels should have (the Interstar Carriers) is a docking hull able to accommodate at least 1 Mid-Range Class vessel (like the Millenium-Falcon, or Sankukai), realistic and pertinent docking ports (many, because they must bring Orbiter-Class and small Mid-Range Class Explorer vessels with them), and most important of all they must have correct power correlation configuration (when fully loaded) referring to its size and mass, main and hover engines, and attitude thrusters.

And this is absolutely crucial.

Correct correlation size/mass/power: these Long-Range Class vessels (Carriers and Explorers) must be configured for being able to acquire a speed of 50 000Km/sec. (50 000 000 m/s) [indicated: Vel 50.00M], in less than 1 hour applied full thrust. So they can reach distances between 30AU and 100AU in a relatively acceptable length of time.

For example, the Stardestroyer (included in the StarWars planetary system) is a great vessel, huge, magnificent ship, and it has everything. However, it was useless. I had to add 7 accurate docking ports, and 1 docking port inside the hull (to fit the Falcon), and I had to readjust entirely its engine’s power correlation configuration (size/mass/power), so that it can be utilized for what it is meant for (Long-Range Class carrier/fleet anchorage). Same with the Death-Star, and the 1701c, etc. I had to readjust 12 vessels of different Class one way or another, about half the space fleet.

Same thing with the Event-Horizon vessel. It is a huge vessel, carrier type, impressive ship. But the only docking port is totally unrealistic, there is no hull, and it has only Mid-Range Class power. And the worst of all it is driven by a module (instead of a config file). I’m done with re-configuring items, so I’m using it as a local Short-Mid-Range Class gases and liquids carrier. There is no docking port in front, so I can not even drag it with a Long-Range Class vessel I have adjusted.

Last thing, however very important from a pilot point of view.

C- When you are at the helm of a vessel, operating and most of the time performing precise maneuvers, you do not rely solely on the instrument displays. The visual perspective is essential, indispensable, necessary. Because you need to position the entire ship in your mind, in relation to everything else out there. Space is 3D geometry in motion. Switching to external view is not realistic at all and it brings all sorts of problems.

The usual Empty Front Space View that often comes with a vessel is just too bad, deplorable, unworthy, very wrong. It should not be. Adding to that, there is only 1 camera position in the vessel’s design files. So those I could adjust have only 1 internal viewpoint.

Vessel Designers ought to take time and consider very seriously the pilot’s view point, from cockpit or helm (depending on the vessel), and from additional places inside the vessel allowing to look outside (behind, left, right, up, down). And in these view points setting we always need to see relevant parts of the vessel, like it would be for real. Some space ships do not have a cockpit, they have a helm, or even a control room (a bridge) for operating everything. If designers were pilots, they would understand that automatically.

For example, get inside the Sankukai vessel. There is full control to the camera view point. You can position it wherever you need, anywhere. The Firefly Cargo 2006 vessel has a perfect view point from the bridge. The entire Burchismo LSTS fleet is exemplary on this matter.

Well, there it is.
The thing is, pilots are usually not designers and vice versa.

If designers would take these 3 recommendations into consideration when creating a vessel, they would build awesome space ships that corresponds to the quality of Orbiter.

I thought I’d mention these to Designers so future pilots can enjoy already made accurate and remarkable vessels. Almost all vessels in my fleet and every ground facilities have been edited (re-adjusted) on my own. It took me 2 years for achieving that and it was a real pain in the tail-pipe because that is not what I use Orbiter for: I’m a pilot, not a developer!

Send me bytes if you need,
Agent0ne.
 
Last edited:

Rtyh-12

New member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
918
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Kraken Mare
You do know that you have the scenario editor...

Or orbital mechanics, that's useful too.
 

Izack

Non sequitur
Addon Developer
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
6,665
Reaction score
13
Points
113
Location
The Wilderness, N.B.
a mfd that would put you in a stable orbit around a planet/moon.
It comes with Orbiter by default. The only thing you need to do is press some buttons on your keyboard for a few minutes while paying attention to what OrbitMFD is telling you and voilà!

Failing that, hop in a Velcro rocket and press P.
 

Eli13

Fish Dreamer
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Somewhere, TN
It comes with Orbiter by default. The only thing you need to do is press some buttons on your keyboard for a few minutes while paying attention to what OrbitMFD is telling you and voilà!

Failing that, hop in a Velcro rocket and press P.

Ok i know that, and i can do that, i just want something that would automatically adjust your heading and speed to get a fairly stable orbit. My idea for this comes from using R-Warp 1.5 which just puts you on a collision course. Thats it really.
 

Arrowstar

Probenaut
Addon Developer
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
1,785
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Ok i know that, and i can do that, i just want something that would automatically adjust your heading and speed to get a fairly stable orbit. My idea for this comes from using R-Warp 1.5 which just puts you on a collision course. Thats it really.

In the scenario editor, just specify your orbital elements appropriately. A semi-major axis of 1.1*R_planet and an eccentricity of 0 will usually do it fairly well. :)
 

Eli13

Fish Dreamer
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Somewhere, TN
Well of course, I just want a bit of a more realistic orbital insertion without some added work. That's all.
 

Saturn V

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
548
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
West Hell
I'd really like to see an MFD that would give me the winning lottery ticket numbers...:tiphat:
 

Eli13

Fish Dreamer
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Somewhere, TN
I'd really like to see an MFD that would give me the winning lottery ticket numbers...:tiphat:

That would be nice.

But the best MFD of all would allow you to communicate with the orbiting one who has since retracted his antenna and moved into elliptical orbit.
:hailprobe:
 

yagni01

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
463
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Atlanta, GA
I think you'll sense a theme, here.

A plugin that would expose the OrbiterAPI/internals to be compatible with FSUIPC and other FS plug-and-play hardware and software.

A plugin to 'fake out' other plugins to enable (e.g.) MFDs to efficiently run out-of-process.

A plugin to allow independent windows for exterior views. Wraparound projections look better when you can tweak the views at different angles. Or to create an overhead window.

Not a plugin, but the ability to support different MFD aspect ratios, portrait and landscape, could open up additional possibilities for MFD developers ( #2 could enable this)
 
Last edited:

Hlynkacg

Aspiring rocket scientist
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
1,870
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
San Diego
I don't know if it's already been suggested (15 pages is a lot to read) but I would like to see a graphical interface with a similar functionality to Velcro Rockets/Multistage and the Universal Payload manager.

However the features that I would most like to see in a future version of Orbiter would be collision detection, and terrain hightmaps for planets.

While I went back to duties in the Alpha system, I still had this topic in mind. I figured out some information from a long-time Space pilot/NAV officer point of view could be useful to some.

There are 3 primary recommendations I would present to Add-On Developers.

A- When you place a ground base (or any facility) on a planet, there is always an inherent distance between the real surface of the planet (the ground) and the items of the facility.

This can be solved by using the "MAPOBJECTTOSPHERE" function and making sure that your meshes have no (-) vertex coordinates.
 

Henobic Theosapien

(was) Addon Developer
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Kendari, Southeast Celebes
If Orbiter can define multiple star and other object such as Cluster, galaxy, just like Celestia....
If Orbiter have collision detection, celestial body collision detect, such as Meteorite Collision effect....
If orbiter have star's livetime, so, on the time, can create Supernova that destroy nearest celestial body....
If orbiter simulate exploding thing such as bomb....
 

RisingFury

OBSP developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
6,427
Reaction score
491
Points
173
Location
Among bits and Bytes...
If Orbiter can define multiple star and other object such as Cluster, galaxy, just like Celestia....

Given that Orbiter 2010 has the new background image, I don't see why that would be useful. It's not like you can fly from one solar system to another.


If Orbiter have collision detection, celestial body collision detect, such as Meteorite Collision effect....

Why? So you can slam planets together? That's not the point of Orbiter.


If orbiter have star's livetime, so, on the time, can create Supernova that destroy nearest celestial body....

Even the fastest evolving stars live ~10 million years before they go supernova. Given that you can speed up time in orbiter by a factor of 100 000, you'd need to leave the computer online for 100 years to see even the fastest evolving star from being born to dying.

A supernova occurs on average once every 50 years in the galaxy and from historical sources once every few hundred years it's seen from Earth. Besides, the point of Orbiter is space flight, not star wars death star.


If orbiter simulate exploding thing such as bomb....

It's not designed for that. Although you should look for addons such as OBSP, UCGO bomb and AA missile.
 
Top