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.
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.
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.
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: