Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Space Flight Simulator > Orbiter Web Forum > Simpit Forum
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Notices

Simpit Forum Share & discuss simpit projects for Orbiter here!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-06-2009, 07:40 PM   #31
TSPenguin
The Seeker
 
TSPenguin's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 Neither OMP nor OrbConnect have that capability yet. If you want to add it, though, go ahead!
It still is doable with some restrictions.
All ship systems would only be accurate on the original display. An OMP connection could be used to display the big screen with a HUD.
TSPenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 08:06 PM   #32
Messierhunter
Orbinaut
 
Messierhunter's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSPenguin View Post
 An OMP connection could be used to display the big screen with a HUD.
No joke? Wow, that's great news to me! Is time acceleration available with OMP, and how stable is the current build?
Messierhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 10:47 PM   #33
TSPenguin
The Seeker
 
TSPenguin's Avatar
Default

OMP is alpha. It is not considered stable and time acceleration is not available.
Unless you are planning on helping with the developement of OMP I would not recommend fiddeling with it. Bringing up an orbConnect solution would be more feasable and stable.
After all, that is what orbConnect is for and using OMP would have to be considered a dirty hack. It just has a completely different mission statement.
TSPenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 11:05 PM   #34
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSPenguin View Post
 OMP is alpha. It is not considered stable and time acceleration is not available.
Unless you are planning on helping with the developement of OMP I would not recommend fiddeling with it. Bringing up an orbConnect solution would be more feasable and stable.
After all, that is what orbConnect is for and using OMP would have to be considered a dirty hack. It just has a completely different mission statement.
I believe some ideas for this got kicked around at some point, but we never got around to starting anything. Basically, the route that I was thinking of going would be to have the ability for Orbiter instances to "slave" themselves to a "master" which is using UDP broadcasts of the pertinant vessel position data.

Latency wouldn't be as big of an issue as for OMP since it's only intended to be used over a local network. You'd still have to deal with issues of time synchronization, though.
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 11:45 AM   #35
tblaxland
Webmaster
 
tblaxland's Avatar


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 I believe some ideas for this got kicked around at some point...
Yes, here (posts 19 thru 22):
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthr...4679#post64679

The diagram I drew has gone missing but the description of the concept should be enough.
tblaxland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 02:36 PM   #36
yagni01
Addon Developer

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSPenguin View Post
 OMP is alpha. It is not considered stable and time acceleration is not available.
Unless you are planning on helping with the developement of OMP I would not recommend fiddeling with it. Bringing up an orbConnect solution would be more feasable and stable.
After all, that is what orbConnect is for and using OMP would have to be considered a dirty hack. It just has a completely different mission statement.
One item missing is an Orb:Connect client plugin that would subscribe to and receive messages from a Master Orbiter and push the simulation state into its own copy. This would allow passive copies/slaves. The communication protocol is not the most efficient, so the $64K question is: Can you pass enough information through the API to keep the slave(s) sync'd?

Something like the communication part of RemoteMFD in something that fed the API rather than displays might work to test the concept.
yagni01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 06:09 AM   #37
BHawthorne
Simpit Builder
 
BHawthorne's Avatar
Default

I'd be willing to be a test subject for syncing multiple comps and displays. I've got a bunch of gaming hardware sitting around. Currently, it's a rack of systems with 12 nVidia GPUs total being used for my folding@home farm, but it can just as soon be testing multiple computer Orbiter stuff too on the side. Got a whole pallete of 21" CRTs I can experiment with too.
BHawthorne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 09:43 PM   #38
bpops
Simpit Builder
 
bpops's Avatar
Default

Someone mentioned that Orbiter Direct X should be capable of outputting to the full Matrox TH2G resolution (3840 x 1024 if I remember right). Is this something that could be 'easily' fixed? Or does anyone even know why Orbiter crashes at resolution of over ~2000px wide?
bpops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 10:59 PM   #39
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpops View Post
 Someone mentioned that Orbiter Direct X should be capable of outputting to the full Matrox TH2G resolution (3840 x 1024 if I remember right). Is this something that could be 'easily' fixed? Or does anyone even know why Orbiter crashes at resolution of over ~2000px wide?
The DX9 engine might be able to, but I'm pretty sure the current DX7 one can't.
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2009, 12:00 AM   #40
TSPenguin
The Seeker
 
TSPenguin's Avatar
Default

The current built in engine can't do it. I can't remember the reason (it is somewhere in this forum though) but any OVP client won't have that limitation. I am not sure about the DX7 client of the current in-dev version, but as Martin simply detached it from the core I doubt it broke that limitation.
TSPenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2009, 01:49 PM   #41
bpops
Simpit Builder
 
bpops's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSPenguin View Post
 The current built in engine can't do it. I can't remember the reason (it is somewhere in this forum though) but any OVP client won't have that limitation. I am not sure about the DX7 client of the current in-dev version, but as Martin simply detached it from the core I doubt it broke that limitation.
I can verify that the curent Direct X OVP client does not run in the higher resolutions.
bpops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2009, 02:47 AM   #42
BHawthorne
Simpit Builder
 
BHawthorne's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpops View Post
 Someone mentioned that Orbiter Direct X should be capable of outputting to the full Matrox TH2G resolution (3840 x 1024 if I remember right). Is this something that could be 'easily' fixed? Or does anyone even know why Orbiter crashes at resolution of over ~2000px wide?
BTW, full TH2G Digital is 5040x1050 (3x 22") while the old obsolete TH2G analog is only 3840x1024. I would prefer the idea be to push the capability to not need a $300 Matrox box though. While I do have them (th2g digital, th2g analog and 2x dh2g digital), the average player would not. It's an unneeded expense if properly accounted for in the client.
BHawthorne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2009, 01:08 PM   #43
bpops
Simpit Builder
 
bpops's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BHawthorne View Post
 BTW, full TH2G Digital is 5040x1050 (3x 22") while the old obsolete TH2G analog is only 3840x1024. I would prefer the idea be to push the capability to not need a $300 Matrox box though. While I do have them (th2g digital, th2g analog and 2x dh2g digital), the average player would not. It's an unneeded expense if properly accounted for in the client.
I don't understand this comment. All the box does is output the resolution given to it to three monitors -- the computer sees the box as a single very wide monitor. To 'not need' it has nothing at all to do with Orbiter, it has to do with the size monitors available. Fixing the resolution limit on Orbiter would solve the problem by itself, with no concern for the TH2G.

Also, I do have an analog TH2G, that's why I put 3840.. bought mine just before they released the digital version
bpops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2009, 06:04 PM   #44
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpops View Post
 I don't understand this comment. All the box does is output the resolution given to it to three monitors -- the computer sees the box as a single very wide monitor. To 'not need' it has nothing at all to do with Orbiter, it has to do with the size monitors available. Fixing the resolution limit on Orbiter would solve the problem by itself, with no concern for the TH2G.
I believe he's referring to the suggestions that have been thrown around to make Orbiter behave like FSX on multiple monitors.
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2009, 09:35 PM   #45
BHawthorne
Simpit Builder
 
BHawthorne's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpops View Post
 I don't understand this comment. All the box does is output the resolution given to it to three monitors -- the computer sees the box as a single very wide monitor. To 'not need' it has nothing at all to do with Orbiter, it has to do with the size monitors available. Fixing the resolution limit on Orbiter would solve the problem by itself, with no concern for the TH2G.

Also, I do have an analog TH2G, that's why I put 3840.. bought mine just before they released the digital version
To clarify it to you in such a way that might make more sense... The client could be coded to have similar features as MSFS where you can open several camera windows. That way you just throw as many camera windows open as you have video outs to screens. No need for a $300 chunk of hardware from Matrox. That'll require work to achieve though. The only reason why TH2G exists is because the lack of foresight by the 3D client developers. If they had multi-display in mind to begin with the TH2G would be a real expensive paperweight. A hardware solution sets the bar way too high for multi-display options. One should not have to be required to fork out $300 to play games on multi-screen. It's already expensive enough to have to buy multi-display without adding in a hardware splitter box from Matrox. I'm saying this as a person that has had a TH2G since the first week the analog was released and I have all of them DH2G and TH2G analog and digital. I didn't buy them because I liked Matrox. I bought them because game developers don't have the foresight to make games multi-display.
BHawthorne is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Space Flight Simulator > Orbiter Web Forum > Simpit Forum


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:48 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 - 2012, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.