Orbiter 2016 (and KSP) in The Space Review

[FlyingSinger]

I wrote a review article on Orbiter 2016 for The Space Review, and it just went live here. Jeff suggested that I also cover how it compares with other space sims, so I added brief overviews of Kerbal Space Program and Space Simulator, an Orbiter-like app for iOS (and maybe other platforms). This TSR article is an update to one I wrote about Orbiter in 2005.

Eleven years on, I still think Orbiter is the coolest, and even cooler with the 2016 update. I hope my TSR article helps to spread the word a bit. I haven't been blogging much recently, but I also wrote a new post about Orbiter 2016 with a bunch of links, partly because the TSR article links to it (the article also links to the forum and other important Orbiter sites).

-Bruce

 

[ADSWNJ]

Nice article, Bruce, and great choice of pictures at the top. Are you planning to do a reboot of Go Play In Space for 2016?

 

[FlyingSinger]

Nice article, Bruce, and great choice of pictures at the top. Are you planning to do a reboot of Go Play In Space for 2016?

Thanks! I'm actually planning to do some editing of the Wiki version of Go Play In Space for Orbiter 2016. That way others can make edits too, although this is all theoretical so far (including my edits), though I did create the cover graphic on that page sometime ago.

-Bruce

 

[francisdrake]

Hi Bruce, glad to hear from you again!
This a good comparision between the space simulations. Typically KSP gets more media coverage because it is easier to learn, has more play elements and also has a rewarding system.

On the other hand Orbiter is the authority to simulate flights within the solar system, or play challenges from the past or the future (for free!).
For example John Sandford states in the epilogue of this book Saturn Run that he used Orbiter to keep track of the positions and speeds of the US and Chinese vessels on their way out to Saturn and back.

B.t.w. thanks for choosing the Orion for the example screenshots in your article!

 

[martins]

Hi Bruce, very nice to hear from you!

Thanks for the great article - it's good to see that you are still following the developments after all these years (and you still like Orbiter ).

The vast majority of the material in Go Play In Space should still be up-to-date (after all, the spaceflight concepts in orbiter haven't really changed), but any edits to bring it in line with the latest version would make it even better.

Setting GPIS up as a wiki is definitely a good idea. Maybe it should be publicised a bit more - I can put a link to it on the Orbiter page, if you like. Do you have rules as to who is allowed to make changes? Is there an editorial process? I'd be happy to update some of the recent technical changes to installation etc. (if I find time!).

 

[MikeB]

Setting GPIS up as a wiki is definitely a good idea. Maybe it should be publicised a bit more - I can put a link to it on the Orbiter page, if you like. Do you have rules as to who is allowed to make changes? Is there an editorial process? I'd be happy to update some of the recent technical changes to installation etc. (if I find time!).

The wiki allows anyone (even vandals :thumbsdown to edit any page, including GPIS. Also anyone can revert any edits :thumbup:. It's just like Wikipedia in that regard. I suggest that contributors register on the wiki using the same name you use on Orbiter Forum.

There is no editorial process, but it might be a good idea to have a discussion on a roadmap. For instance, the version of GPIS currently on the wiki is most of the way from Orbiter 2006 to Orbiter 2010. Should it be edited to reflect Orbiter 2016? Or should it be completed to reflect Orbiter 2010 first? Should there be separate versions of GPIS for the most recent Orbiter versions?

Anyone is welcome to contribute to the wiki, and not only to GPIS. There are many topic areas on OrbiterWiki, and many pages that could use a little loving care. My particular interest (which I'll be getting to "real soon now"!) is the section I called Rocket Science For Amateurs (RSFA). I intend to put as much as I can understand of Keithth G's articles in there, among other stuff.

 

[Urwumpe]

I recommend restricting the number of editors to a small but active core and maybe use a lecturing process for tutorials. With OrbiterWiki, we tried to be open and really got burned because we lack the brute force of Wikipedia there to deal with massive vandalism. If an editor is completely busy reverting vandalism, he can't create new content.

 

[FlyingSinger]

MikeB invited me to participate in the wiki back in 2014 when he asked if I would agree to have Go Play In Space as part of it. I said certainly, and that I would like to be involved with editing it, but then I mostly didn't, except for creating the "cover page" collage. I had played a bit with the development version at the time but then got distracted by work and other things as usual. Now I am feeling another "space phase" coming on, with Orbiter 2016, SpaceX developments, excitement about Mars, and other stuff. So I do believe I can devote some time to Orbiter in the next couple of months, and the TSR article was a sort of "down payment" on that.

I don't love the acronym GPIS but let's go with it and say that I would like the "book" or wiki to be easily available and easily updated, and while I fully intend to be one of the updaters, I like the fact that others can help if they wish to. Of course that does open us up to wiki-vandalism and the like, so I have no problem with requiring some sort of minimal vetting before someone can edit it, if that's possible.

On guidelines and editions, I think that in terms of the UI, the 2010 and 2016 versions have not diverged all that much. I love the top-edge mouse-hover menu that slides down to give access to major functions, but in v2010, this is a floating menu triggered by F4, right? Not all that different.

So I don't know the best way to do this, but I wonder if we could design some sort of tagging system for the text to point out information that differs between 2010 and 2016, without requiring two separate documents. I think 2016 should be the baseline and all (or most) of the screen shots should be 2016, but there would be tagged "v2010" comments to point out what is different. I think this might minimize the amount of extra material and duplication. I suppose I can just try this out on one chapter of the wiki and see how it works. I'm also open to other ideas!

 

[MikeB]

With OrbiterWiki, we tried to be open and really got burned because we lack the brute force of Wikipedia there to deal with massive vandalism.

I didn't have much experience with OrbiterWiki before proposing adding GPIS (I agree, not the nicest acronym); in fact I still don't. Was there actually a lot of vandalism? At first, I intended to create a separate blog for RSFA, but the administrative effort was too much for me. I think the wiki can be set up to only allow registered users to edit; maybe an administrator can weigh in on that.

On guidelines and editions, I think that in terms of the UI, the 2010 and 2016 versions have not diverged all that much. ... I wonder if we could design some sort of tagging system for the text to point out information that differs between 2010 and 2016, without requiring two separate documents. I think 2016 should be the baseline and all (or most) of the screen shots should be 2016, but there would be tagged "v2010" comments to point out what is different. I think this might minimize the amount of extra material and duplication. I suppose I can just try this out on one chapter of the wiki and see how it works. I'm also open to other ideas!

This sounds like a good idea to me. I don't really like the idea of two separate documents, and having "v2010" comments (and eventually "v2016" after Dr. Schweiger brings us v2017 ) should keep readers on track.

 

[ADSWNJ]

My view is that it should be focused on Orbiter 2016. I know there a lots of people who will find reasons to cling on to Orbiter 2010 or older, but I feel we should continue to focus resources on making the experience of the new product the best we can make it. We all survived with Go Play In Space 2006 for the 2010 era, so IMHO the newcomers can do the same.