OHM Nearest Systems

[OrbitHangar]

Author: cizurator

Petr ''Cizurator'' Cizek proudly presents

NEAREST SYSTEMS

9 real star systems within range of 30LY from the Sun
(1LY is 10AU here)

71 new objects
including stars, gas giants, earth-like planets,
moons or asteroid belts.

all available in one scenario.

This addon is a compatible part of
my UNITED SYSTEMS FLEET project
but it can be used as it is - no extra requirements.

UPDATE 10.2.2011 - Tau Ceti mesh repaired​

DOWNLOAD

 

[pip12345]

9 star systems in one scenario? :blink:
Downloading now!

 

[stevcast]

Excellent work, and I think that your hanger bays look great!!!

 

[Hielor]

Wait, I'm confused by "1LY is 10AU here." Does that mean that this is scaled down so that these systems are inside the orbit of Uranus?

 

[donatelo200]

Could you put each solar system in there own cfg so that they are illuminated with there own star with this? Also The planet textures are impressive nice work!

 

[Cizurator]

Wait, I'm confused by "1LY is 10AU here." Does that mean that this is scaled down so that these systems are inside the orbit of Uranus?

Actually - yes. So I had to delete all the Sol system's planets except Earth and Moon to create some place for the stars.

if the Proxima centauri is 4.22LY from the Sun in real space, than it's 42.2AU in this scenario.

Details in the readme file

---------- Post added at 22:28 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ----------

Could you put each solar system in there own cfg so that they are illuminated with there own star with this? Also The planet textures are impressive nice work!

Yes, it would be possible, it would be more light-realistic, but it would also break up... I want to keep it together because of the United Systems Fleet project - it was initially made as some more extrasolar space for USF...
The side effect is, that it can be released it with possibility of free separated use.

But you can split them by yourself, if you can. But please, only for your private use, don't release it. It might be messed up on OH.

Anyway, thanks

PS: I use Planet Editor, MSPaint and Photofiltre for those textures...

 

[crazydogg]

tip:
if you put 1 light year = 30AU, no need to delete the planets of the solar system and even the trips get a little more realistic. :thumbup:
In any case, congratulations on work at the moment I can not say I liked it or not, I'm still downloading. :compbash2:

 

[Iacomus Maximus]

I like this idea, but it just feels 'wrong'. It seems to me that an update to Orbiter could allow for other star systems, including Sol of course, referenced from the galactic core.
edit:
The more I think about this idea, the more I like it. In Orbiter the planets are referenced to a star, which they orbit, and moons are referenced to a planet, which they orbit. I can't imagine that it would be too hard, I'm a software engineer but I have to admit that I've never looked at the source code for Orbiter, to add one more level of abstraction and have have stars orbit the galactic core. Heck, with the distances involved, the stars would basicly be in geosync with the core so the math for calculating orbits would be non-existant; just plant them at an radius from the core and an elevation (+/-) from the galactic plane and there shouldn't be any need to move them (not in our observable lifetimes anyway).
From:
Star=>Planet(s)=>Moon(s)
To:
GC=>Star=>Planet(s)=>Moon(s)

Just a thought...

 

[Cizurator]

tip:
if you put 1 light year = 30AU, no need to delete the planets of the solar system and even the trips get a little more realistic. :thumbup:
In any case, congratulations on work at the moment I can not say I liked it or not, I'm still downloading. :compbash2:

I've encountered a problem with distances over 300AU a long time ago. I wasn't sure, if it was my fault or just because of that distance, but landing on such a distant object was impossible because of shaking of the object...

I didn't know the reason. And now, I didn't want to solve some extra problems, so I chose this 1LY:10AU ratio

---------- Post added at 15:27 ---------- Previous post was at 15:21 ----------

I like this idea, but it just feels 'wrong'. It seems to me that an update to Orbiter could allow for other star systems, including Sol of course, referenced from the galactic core.
edit:
The more I think about this idea, the more I like it. In Orbiter the planets are referenced to a star, which they orbit, and moons are referenced to a planet, which they orbit. I can't imagine that it would be too hard, I'm a software engineer but I have to admit that I've never looked at the source code for Orbiter, to add one more level of abstraction and have have stars orbit the galactic core. Heck, with the distances involved, the stars would basicly be in geosync with the core so the math for calculating orbits would be non-existant; just plant them at an radius from the core and an elevation (+/-) from the galactic plane and there shouldn't be any need to move them (not in our observable lifetimes anyway).
From:
Star=>Planet(s)=>Moon(s)
To:
GC=>Star=>Planet(s)=>Moon(s)

Just a thought...

I've already read something about a project like "orbiter galaxy"

Anyway, in the beginning I was wondering, if there's any possibility of multi-level building. I'm not a programmer, so I was searching for some ways to create moons of the moons. And I found this way

Planet1 = xxx
xxx:Moon1 = yyy
xxx:Moon1:Moon1 = zzz

and I even tested this:

xxx:Moon1:Moon1:Moon1 = ***

it seemed to work, so I built this all on this.

 

[Izack]

The distance problem is not just you; it's a limitation of Orbiter's core, and a very reasonable one. As the distance to the Sun (the centre of the Orbiter universe) increases, its accuracy decreases.
Example:
If Orbiter could only carry three significant digits for whatever reason, it would look like this:
10.0 m from the Sun (let's call this stable)
1.00e2 m from the Sun (0.1m lost)
1.00e3 m from the Sun (1m lost, docking impossible)
And so on...
So accuracy decreases by an order of magnitude for every order of magnitude in distance from the Sun. By the time you get to to 1.50e11 m (1 AU), calculations would be so wildly inaccurate that it would be impossible to tell where the smegging Earth was. Obviously, this is on a much smaller scale than Orbiter, but the principle still applies, as far as I understand. Now thikn of how much accuracy even Orbiter would lose over the distance between Sol and the galactic core (2.46e20 m)?

Unnecessarily long and wordy post is unnecessarily long and wordy. :shifty:

 

[Wishbone]

Can this be fixed by switching to BigNumbers? (yes I know it costs a lot of CPU time)

 

[Cizurator]

The distance problem is not just you; it's a limitation of Orbiter's core, and a very reasonable one. As the distance to the Sun (the centre of the Orbiter universe) increases, its accuracy decreases.

This crossed my mind, too. Anyway, my tests showed me maximum "stabile-surface" distance about 300AU.

You may encounter with this small shaking if you land somewhere in Gamma Leporis system.

---------- Post added at 21:17 ---------- Previous post was at 21:11 ----------

Can this be fixed by switching to BigNumbers? (yes I know it costs a lot of CPU time)

oh it's probably something, what would kill my computer - i use 768MB RAM and 1.6GHz processor
It's an old crate, but it's a big stayer It has proved a lot of big things since I bought it (one year ago)

 

[Iacomus Maximus]

I've encountered a problem with distances over 300AU a long time ago. I wasn't sure, if it was my fault or just because of that distance, but landing on such a distant object was impossible because of shaking of the object...

I didn't know the reason. And now, I didn't want to solve some extra problems, so I chose this 1LY:10AU ratio

---------- Post added at 15:27 ---------- Previous post was at 15:21 ----------




I've already read something about a project like "orbiter galaxy"

Anyway, in the beginning I was wondering, if there's any possibility of multi-level building. I'm not a programmer, so I was searching for some ways to create moons of the moons. And I found this way

Planet1 = xxx
xxx:Moon1 = yyy
xxx:Moon1:Moon1 = zzz

and I even tested this:

xxx:Moon1:Moon1:Moon1 = ***

it seemed to work, so I built this all on this.

Very Cool !!! I read something also but I think the last post was a little less than a year ago. This is something that could be built into the core of Orbiter though. To negate the effects of distance from the reference point (which is something I hadn't considered but is obviously a problem) the reference point of an object could be it's immediate parent object or it's grandparent (which may be the better option since obviously moons within a solar system don't seem to have a problem with being so far from the parent star).

Again, This is just a thought I've had and thought I would share it.

 

[Screamer]

Hi.

Thank you for an excellent add-on to the orbiter community.
I like the idea you have by "shrink" space and time. Maybe you must apply for the Nobel price. You might be a winner!!:thumbup:

OK, all joke's aside....

I tested it using IMFD and what a mess. There are so many "sun's" that IMFD could not be used as we know it. But surprisingly the Map MFD in IFMD work!!!
No CTD at all. Why is that? If I try other systems, I can guarantee a CTD when using IFMD map.

Thanks

Johan

 

[crazydogg]

Excellent work!:thumbup:
congratulations, I'll take weeks to explore everything!
regarding the problem of large distances, I think I got the problem and know how to get around it, I did what I had suggested: 1LY = 50AU, Alpha Centauri A was the 211AU away, and went there when I arrived I realized that planets were not in the place indicated on the MFD, it seems that the Orbiter has some sort of temporal distortion at large distances, is as if the speed of light was important in the orbiter, the problem is that this supposed speed of light is very variable, it decreases when the distance increases, I know it does not make sense, but it really works! you just pick up the speed of light spot, calculate the time it takes to go from the apparent position of the planet to the sun and back, add this time indicated in the MFD and you will find the position of the planet.
it is as if the MFD were on earth or in the sun and the signal would take a while to go from ship to the MFD, the MFD makes the calculations with the signal it receives, but until the signal arrives at the ship, the planet moved.
I can not guarantee that it is just that, because I only made two trips up 100AU using IMFD.

 

[Izack]

Excellent work!:thumbup:
congratulations, I'll take weeks to explore everything!
regarding the problem of large distances, I think I got the problem and know how to get around it, I did what I had suggested: 1LY = 50AU, Alpha Centauri A was the 211AU away, and went there when I arrived I realized that planets were not in the place indicated on the MFD, it seems that the Orbiter has some sort of temporal distortion at large distances, is as if the speed of light was important in the orbiter, the problem is that this supposed speed of light is very variable, it decreases when the distance increases, I know it does not make sense, but it really works! you just pick up the speed of light spot, calculate the time it takes to go from the apparent position of the planet to the sun and back, add this time indicated in the MFD and you will find the position of the planet.
it is as if the MFD were on earth or in the sun and the signal would take a while to go from ship to the MFD, the MFD makes the calculations with the signal it receives, but until the signal arrives at the ship, the planet moved.
I can not guarantee that it is just that, because I only made two trips up 100AU using IMFD.

Well that's mighty odd, because Orbiter is purely Newtonian. :tiphat:

 

[Cizurator]

Hi.
I tested it using IMFD and what a mess. There are so many "sun's" that IMFD could not be used as we know it. But surprisingly the Map MFD in IFMD work!!!
No CTD at all. Why is that? If I try other systems, I can guarantee a CTD when using IFMD map.

Maybe you'll be surprised, but I have never used IMFD. I have never made an effective interplanetary journey. Planet's orbit is my final frontier. The reason is simple -
I prefer Warp Drive :leaving:
So i have no idea how IMFD works at high distances - I even don't know, how to use it....

---------- Post added at 15:34 ---------- Previous post was at 15:30 ----------

Well that's mighty odd, because Orbiter is purely Newtonian. :tiphat:

It is probably rather caused by orbiter's calculations at so high distances.
Light speed shouldn't affect anything in orbiter...

 

[crazydogg]

I think you have misunderstood what I meant :hmm:
I meant that the "problem of the huge distance" in the Orbiter is like a warp, and I did not mean that the orbiter is relativistic
simplifying:
MFDs show the past or the future of a planet / moon and the ship "feel" and see the current position of the planet / moon!

 

[Cizurator]

I think you have misunderstood what I meant :hmm:
I meant that the "problem of the huge distance" in the Orbiter is like a warp, and I did not mean that the orbiter is relativistic
simplifying:
MFDs show the past or the future of a planet / moon and the ship "feel" and see the current position of the planet / moon!

oh, i see
(sorry, my bad english:facepalm

 

[T.Neo]

Nice... maybe in another version, you can make the Earth 2 km across and the UMMUs a third of a millimeter tall as well.