OHM Shuttlefleet High detail ET and SRB's

[moonheart]

Beautiful work

Hey Pappy2 - where might one find those amazing work from Dave?

 

[hutchison66]

Shuttle Fleet

Sorry Folks what I said was maybe sounding a bit harsh but I do want to move over to 2016 I was really disappointed. if it was possible I would happily work with others to port it over to 2016.
Maybe we could get a small group together with the blessing of David 413
like SSU, keeping Shuttle Fleet flying it would be a real shame to let it die
I bet the fix for 2016 would be very small, the rest is perfect and doesn't need any more work

 

[Donamy]

This is in fact how Shuttle Fleet began. Not as the complete fleet but just an overhaul of the technical side of the default Atlantis. I was involved on the mesh side of this little project then called Atlantis Mod. This was back in late 2002 if I remember correctly.
Everything was nice and well and then along came Donamy with his new Endeavour (not Atlantis) mesh/textures in early 2003 and asked if it could be used in place of the default Atlantis. Then David413 asked if he could use Atlantis Mod as the base of a new add-on that would incorporate all of the orbiters from the the earliest Columbia to the latest Endeavour. Permission was granted and a few months later Shuttle Fleet v1.0 was released.

So as you can see, this has already happened, more than 13 years ago. In fact, the very last version of Atlantis Mod, v1.5, is still available for download on OHM: Atlantis Mod 15a

Also a big mesh and texture upgrade from Michael Grosberg.

 

[Face]

with the blessing of David 413

And right there is your problem. You need that first, otherwise all work is for nothing. Even if you can reverse-engineer the DLLs, you will not be able to distribute it due to copyright.

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve with this talk here. Do you think David413 is reading it and getting a warm feeling? Do you think somebody here has a better link to him and just needs to be convinced to talk to him?

Perhaps it is so, but I strongly doubt it. David413 is not visiting these forums anymore, but he is over at Dan's. I suggest moving team-building and worshiping over there, because the chances are higher that he sees and reacts to it. Even if you just want to go for public pressure, Dan's forums is the better place to do it IMHO.

 

[Thorsten]

As a matter of fact the latest Orbiter is missing a Space Shuttle that can simulate at least some of the basic maneuvers/tasks. The Fleet was far from being a replica of the real thing but at least offered some nice features specifically developed for a space shuttle (like GPCMFD, RPOPMFD, ORBTGTMFD, etc.)

My question is: can Orbiter afford to live with no "usable" Space Shuttle? Would you imagine a F1 simulator/game with no Ferrari?

A somewhat outside perspective:

This whole argument hinges on the definition of 'usable'. I've used stock Atlantis for a complete mission to ISS including re-entry with stock instrumentation. So it can be used to simulate basic maneuvering.

Is it particularly realistic? No, certainly not. But then it depends on the question of what defines realism for you. The real Shuttle has its idiosyncracies, like it is yaw-unstable over most of the aerodynamical range and needs to be managed carefully by the aerojet DAP. Is any entry realistic till you actually have a simulated flight controller taming the instability? Till you actually need to take care of vehicle trim before doing the entry?

I come from a flightsim environment where it's commonly acknowledged that instruments never show simulated 'truth' but that, say, an altimeter is driven by a simulation of pitot tubes with ram and ambient pressure and reacts to simulated pressures, not simulated altitude. Is anything realistic before instruments actually do it?

You're drawing a particular line between realism and complexity and say 'that's what I like to have'. Well - that's your personal preference, nothing more, nothing less. It's different for others, and this does not equal 'without usable Shuttle' - people who enjoy a higher degree of complexity and realism might find your preference unusable and find SSU very usable.

It would also be well to remember you're getting something for free here - you're not a paying customer who can demand certain services perfectly tailored to your liking.

Otherwise, if it doesn't come with a free software license, your only option is to get permission by the author. And there asking nicely for permission has a much higher chance of success than finger-pointing and complaining.

And, as others have said, if you don't like that, you'd best stay away from closed source software, because this is how it works - the author decides everything, and like any other license, this ought to be respected. Because someone did a lot of work and made it available for free.

 

[Urwumpe]

And who knows maybe frustration will turn into initiative.

Exactly that should be said more often. In friendly bold letters.

If something is missing, you can add it to Orbiter. Yes, it takes time and skills. But you can.

 

[Wolf]

This whole argument hinges on the definition of 'usable'. I've used stock Atlantis for a complete mission to ISS including re-entry with stock instrumentation. So it can be used to simulate basic maneuvering.

Maybe this can help clarifying what I mean by "usable"; you also made yourself some clear comments in this thread...
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=37736

Is it particularly realistic? No, certainly not. But then it depends on the question of what defines realism for you.
You're drawing a particular line between realism and complexity and say 'that's what I like to have'. Well - that's your personal preference, nothing more, nothing less.

I am not drawing any line, just explaining my point of you (and maybe some others shuttle fans) with no intentions to judge or even criticise any addon or developer (including the stock ships).
I am just outlining what it comes from my personal experience using those addons. Yes this is all very subjective but I think we can all agree there are different levels of realism and there is no doubt the Fleet is a few steps ahead of the stock Atlantis. This is just a matter of fact, nothing related to what I perosnally do or do not like.

It would also be well to remember you're getting something for free here - you're not a paying customer who can demand certain services perfectly tailored to your liking.

I speak for myself here but I suppose hutchinson66 and all other users would conquer with this: it is very clear that Orbiter itself and everything that comes with it is a GIFT. I am not expecting or demanding anything here and I know I owe a lot to Martin and all the guys who spend their own free time in getting this sim better every day, but said that I hope there is still room for open discussion on the forum.

 

[n122vu]

...you're getting something for free here - you're not a paying customer who can demand certain services perfectly tailored to your liking.

The core of the entire matter is summed up in this one sentence. David413 has his reasons for keeping the Shuttle Fleet closed-source. I may not agree with his actions, or his attitude, but I do understand why he may want to just let it die - because people don't understand the point Thorsten made. There's no gratitude at all in some cases. Here this developer spends his own time in front of a computer screen instead of talking to his wife, spending time with other family, etc., and all he hears is, "Why doesn't it do this?" or "This is awesome, but it doesn't work with addon XYZ..." I for one would get tired of it after a while, and I know he did. You have to really love what you're doing, and get enjoyment from it, and when you have so many being so demanding of you, you'll eventually get to the point where you don't think it's worth it anymore. David413 got there a LONG time ago, but at the request of others, kept going over at avsim.

He's the author. This is HIS work. He's sharing it with you for free. He has no obligation to keep pulling it forward to new versions of Orbiter, and I'm honestly surprised it even made it into Orbiter 2010 the way things were going back then.

My two cents worth.

 

[Urwumpe]

..., but said that I hope there is still room for open discussion on the forum.

Depends on what you want to discuss.

I have no problems discussing add-ons I make. I actually like feedback and crititicism because it makes my add-ons better.

I have a huge problem discussing how and why I make them. My motivation is my personal affair and not discussable. If I choose to make add-ons for destroying Orbiter and the World, how are you going to discuss it with me? And how I make them is also not really leaving much room for discussing it. Maybe about my methods. But there it already ends. I should program add-on xyz? Or do feature abc? Why should I, if it doesn't interest me or is no fun?

But again, as you can see by the use of the word "me": It's my personal opinion because I can handle it that way. Others handle criticism better than I can do, others handle it worse.

 

[Face]

Depends on what you want to discuss.

Indeed. Especially if the person that can really make a difference is not even around here anymore.



As I wrote before: if you love Shuttlefleet - and you really, really want to see it in 2016 - head over to Dan's English forums and write a thread about how much you love it, how sad you are seeing all that beautiful work being abandoned, and ask if there is anything YOU could do to help the author in bringing it up again.
Not just one of the fans should do that, EVERYONE should do it. Imagine 10 people flooding in there and praising David... I bet he will answer, at least with some constructive comment. He is active there, just posted some scenarios there. He won't bite, either. Well, not if you behave .

 

[Kyle]

He's the author. This is HIS work. He's sharing it with you for free. He has no obligation to keep pulling it forward to new versions of Orbiter, and I'm honestly surprised it even made it into Orbiter 2010 the way things were going back then.

My two cents worth.

This.

However, I do believe there should be a Shuttle for the casual Orbiter player who wants to quickly launch a Shuttle that has more capability to recreate missions than the default Atlantis. Not a knock on SSU, because in all likelihood I'll play SSU exclusively once it's ready for Orbiter 2016 anyways.

Thinking off the cusp here, I recall years ago there was a much more simplified version of SSU (v1.06 I think?) that just simulated basic shuttle functions such as APUs and simplified RMS operations, but was a more realistic shuttle than the default Atlantis. Perhaps that could be brought back and ported into Orbiter 2016?

 

[hutchison66]

This.

However, I do believe there should be a Shuttle for the casual Orbiter player who wants to quickly launch a Shuttle that has more capability to recreate missions than the default Atlantis. Not a knock on SSU, because in all likelihood I'll play SSU exclusively once it's ready for Orbiter 2016 anyways.

Thinking off the cusp here, I recall years ago there was a much more simplified version of SSU (v1.06 I think?) that just simulated basic shuttle functions such as APUs and simplified RMS operations, but was a more realistic shuttle than the default Atlantis. Perhaps that could be brought back and ported into Orbiter 2016?

I didn't know about a simplified SSU, that's an interesting idea I would be interested in that, if it was one that could be adapted to have the same functionality as Shuttle Fleet I would be quite happy to starting adapting payloads and missions to that, it would need similar payload attachment points, spin tables and IUS attachment that would be great.
I could set up payloads that could Fly in both SSU's one for the experts and one for the medium guys
its an idea

 

[Thorsten]

I am not drawing any line, just explaining my point of you (and maybe some others shuttle fans) with no intentions to judge or even criticise any addon or developer (including the stock ships).

If that is your intention, may I suggest you avoid wordings like "no 'usable' Shuttle"? Because this can be read as declaring all else unusable, which sounds a tiny bit like criticism

(And I assure you from a long career as OpenSource developer, it absolutely makes our day after having spent tons of coding hours on something to have someone else declare it 'unusable' in a half sentence)

I hope there is still room for open discussion on the forum.

There's the productive and the other variant of those discussions. The other variant goes 'We are a community and hence we should decide what you code for the community.' Alas - this doesn't work with volunteer coders, because they'll code what they're interested in or not at all. You can only do that if you pay them.

The other variant (which actually might be emerging here in the last two posts) is among people who are prepared to do some work themselves to remedy a situation they think is bad, aka 'We as a group of interested people need to decide what we code to improve things.' This sometimes (not always) leads to the desired outcome.

(As a side note - don't assume you know what the community/the casual user/the typical user wants without doing a poll (and even then you have a high selection bias of forum vs. all users). In my experience (going through close to a dozen feedback messages per week) there are vast differences in the expectations of different people - though pretty much everyone seems to believe the typical user is just like him.)

 

[Notebook]

I'm Spartacus!

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm Spartacus!

I am Max Peck.

---------- Post added at 03:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------

And I assure you from a long career as OpenSource developer, it absolutely makes our day after having spent tons of coding hours on something to have someone else declare it 'unusable' in a half sentence

Trust me, this is equally easy to declare in paid work. :lol:

But yes, nobody sees the work you do, people only see the results. And anything less than perfection is a reason to blame you.

 

[Interceptor]

Hello everyone,
Attached images of David's superb work

Orbiter 2016 has just been born, lays time to time ...
Thank you to you "Doc Martins" and to all of you for your extraordinary creations.

Long life at Orbiter and long life shuttles

Pappy2

Hey Pappy2,where did you get that beautiful L-39 Launchpad at?:jawdrops:

 

[hutchison66]

Hey Pappy2,where did you get that beautiful L-39 Launchpad at?:jawdrops:

Hi interceptor, its from me I'm just finishing off some fixes and detailing Pappy does all my testing and keeps me on my toes and manages to find me more things to fix haha, any way I'm working to release it before Christmas there is a pre 1986 version a 1986 to 2006 version and post 2006 versions of LC39A and LC39B there is also launch pads for each era with no MLP they all function and have a lot of surrounding detail.

just watch the Hanger

 

[Interceptor]

Sounds great hutchinson66,nice work,I'll be looking foward to it.

 

[barrygolden]

Well the ISS just flew over the house on its way over JSC and its still a site to see as it glides along silently through the sky . After a hack trashed out my old computer just pulled the starter rope on this new baby and it looks like a jewel. Had a look at 2016 and am blown away. I hope that a detailed shuttle comes in to keep the shuttle flying. I knew hutchison66 pads would be awesome and they are. Shuttle fleet was so user friendly that even a simpleton like me spent hours with it. Can't wait to see the future in orbiter.

 

[hutchison66]

Hi Barry, great to hear you have your new computer, have you tried my full ISS on it yet?
if you think the version of the launch pad I sent you was good, wait till tomorrow and you see the full version with all its different Models
High Detail LC39 A+B released Christmas Eve
little present for the Shuttle Fleet Fans