I feel dirty for asking about "competitors" (if anyone considers that to be the case) but I did see that the developer of Reentry posted here too, the community seems really cool overall.
Being who I am, I just want to know which product gives me the most realistic immersion and why.
My understanding is Reentry has focused heavily on making all the systems actually work. When I decided to compare Reentry with Obiter, because Scott Manley on YouTube says Obiter is more "hardcore sim"....well, I watch Scott Manley's YouTube video of Obiter 2016 and it doesn't look like much of anything works.
I blame Scott more than anything, he was just in default installation and mentioned there are mods.
That video is years old now, so I don't even know what Obiter is in today's condition.
But story aside, basic question above, which simulator actually offers the most immersive simulation? And how to achieve it (if Obiter requires a bunch of mods etc can someone list what they think is needed?)
What makes the sim more immersive? Is the flight realistic for either of them? For instance in MSFS the flight is ok, but not THAT realistic. For the 747 (which I had to learn myself by trial and error cuz no one wants to fly them? \o/ ) they are clunky, the systems are buggy, the autopilot doesn't respond very realistically I am told by actual 747 pilots, and the atmospheric physics is ok but not great especially with things like windsheer.
So, I want to do a space sim but what's the metric for realism there? Because I imagine in one way it's easier....and in one way it's harder to simulate. I enjoyed reading how doubles are needed to make correct renderings of orbits. Has Reentry finally moved to 64bit?
An orbit seems so precise, I always imagined a little error would lead to mission failure. So, how accurate is that for either sim and is that assumption even correct? Afterall, didn't Apollo 13 literally burn by the seat of their pants?
Versus a flight simulator where you're trying to simulate an atmosphere that's very dynamic and how it should affect your surfaces changes very rapidly.
I suppose the king of those problems would be the Shuttle itself, having to actually fly through an atmosphere at the last leg of its reentry.
Anyway, thanks for reading my long winded post. Help me understand the differences between Orbiter and the creation it inspired, Reentry.
Being who I am, I just want to know which product gives me the most realistic immersion and why.
My understanding is Reentry has focused heavily on making all the systems actually work. When I decided to compare Reentry with Obiter, because Scott Manley on YouTube says Obiter is more "hardcore sim"....well, I watch Scott Manley's YouTube video of Obiter 2016 and it doesn't look like much of anything works.
I blame Scott more than anything, he was just in default installation and mentioned there are mods.
That video is years old now, so I don't even know what Obiter is in today's condition.
But story aside, basic question above, which simulator actually offers the most immersive simulation? And how to achieve it (if Obiter requires a bunch of mods etc can someone list what they think is needed?)
What makes the sim more immersive? Is the flight realistic for either of them? For instance in MSFS the flight is ok, but not THAT realistic. For the 747 (which I had to learn myself by trial and error cuz no one wants to fly them? \o/ ) they are clunky, the systems are buggy, the autopilot doesn't respond very realistically I am told by actual 747 pilots, and the atmospheric physics is ok but not great especially with things like windsheer.
So, I want to do a space sim but what's the metric for realism there? Because I imagine in one way it's easier....and in one way it's harder to simulate. I enjoyed reading how doubles are needed to make correct renderings of orbits. Has Reentry finally moved to 64bit?
An orbit seems so precise, I always imagined a little error would lead to mission failure. So, how accurate is that for either sim and is that assumption even correct? Afterall, didn't Apollo 13 literally burn by the seat of their pants?
Versus a flight simulator where you're trying to simulate an atmosphere that's very dynamic and how it should affect your surfaces changes very rapidly.
I suppose the king of those problems would be the Shuttle itself, having to actually fly through an atmosphere at the last leg of its reentry.
Anyway, thanks for reading my long winded post. Help me understand the differences between Orbiter and the creation it inspired, Reentry.
Last edited: