RisingFury
OBSP developer
There probably won't be a need for two separate missiles. The autopilot that hits a target outside of the atmosphere will also need to navigate inside the atmosphere, so might as well make it do two tasks.
Project Orbiter Battle Simulation Project Needs Developers!
- Thread starter escapetomsfate
- Start date
There probably won't be a need for two separate missiles. The autopilot that hits a target outside of the atmosphere will also need to navigate inside the atmosphere, so might as well make it do two tasks.
werdna
Astroarchitect
You guys are doing an amazing job!!!
That being said, I would imagine any real space battle to be short. Real short. And I'm talking about any completely non-atmospheric battles.
Consider: even with hardened shields, flares, lasers to destroy projectiles, or anything else you might think of, if a ship is hit it's probably going to be done for.
Being in orbit (or in space) is sort of like being out in the middle of an unimaginably large ocean. In this ocean, death is guaranteed without working spacesuits or life support systems. I cant imagine small ships confronting each other in space unless there are larger ones to defend. In real life, you'd probably be using drones anyway. In an air dogfight, a plane can still fight with a little damage, but for a spacecraft, that's a different story. There's no air to cool off the hot damaged parts of a ship, or to slow down the really fast rotation after a missile hit. All that damage stays with your ship, one hit and you're as good as dead.
The only actual space battles I could really believe are ones between very large ships. If small spacecraft are involved, their probably going to be drones, as no sane human being is going to get out there and dogfight or intercept other ships amidst a vacuum, and why would we if we can use drones? Thus, it would mostly be between large spacecraft from opposing sides. I'm talking about big, freighter-sized ships, with drone ships. Yet, now we are basically looking at an almost Star Wars-ish battle with real physics (It's called inertia, George Lucas!), or a Star Trek-type confrontation between two ships. Why do you think that so many sci-fi battles have huge vessels? It's cause that will be the only place you can possibly go for millions of miles if you actually make it out alive. You can't have a battle without a fall-back area. We don't just send out planes, we bring them on carriers.
Of course, those two shows feature equally absurd technologies. Star Wars battles are not really "space battles" because all the blunt violations of inertia suggests atmospheric flight. Star Trek has better examples of confrontations between large ships. If such confrontations turn violent, the ship with the best technology usually ends up just plain destroying the other opponent. Often, they don't become fights, because the weaker ship knows it's outmatched- why fight if you can negotiate?
All right. Before you disregard my fictional examples, remember that those short Star-Trek confrontations involve technology that uses methods so advanced they aren't even scientifically possible, yet they are still short. Anything we could build or even theorize doesn't come close to that stuff. If those battles are short, than our battles are going to be much quicker.
In Orbiter, the battles that you plan to simulate are going to be as realistic as possible- right? The damage that ships will cause each other with near-future technologies is going to be huge. What about the rotation from a the impact of a projectile? Your ship will be correcting it's rotation while the other side takes it's next shot. Lasers are the other choice, and if effective enough will still cause a large amount of damage. Space battles might not even be worth fighting. No doubt we would build ships, each side constantly improving, but these weapons aren't going to be used; kind of like the cold war except the fear isn't our annihilation but the weapons annihilating themselves.
I'm not trying to be a negative person here, but I just think that in reality, it probably wouldn't come to this, and as we are striving for realism, then if you ask me I would not choose to implement space battles into Orbiter. Of course, I am curious to see how this turns out. No hard feelings, this isn't a war* after all!!! :lol:
P.S. Also, you could do it this way: Have a huge spaceship with a number of smaller craft which orbit and head towards a ground target, and then that base sends up its own fighters- battles ensue in the air, etc. This would be very difficult to program, but would be awesome. Orbiter doesn't support multiple players (does it?) or a split-screen mode, but maybe that would be the key to good combat, or even for other things, like one person launching another plane into orbit with a TX and then flying it back to a base, while the other player flies into orbit, or something like that. This probably isn't coming anytime soon, but would be pretty cool.
*This applies to Star Wars/Star Trek flame wars. Obviously.
Hope this post wasn't too long.
That being said, I would imagine any real space battle to be short. Real short. And I'm talking about any completely non-atmospheric battles.
Consider: even with hardened shields, flares, lasers to destroy projectiles, or anything else you might think of, if a ship is hit it's probably going to be done for.
Being in orbit (or in space) is sort of like being out in the middle of an unimaginably large ocean. In this ocean, death is guaranteed without working spacesuits or life support systems. I cant imagine small ships confronting each other in space unless there are larger ones to defend. In real life, you'd probably be using drones anyway. In an air dogfight, a plane can still fight with a little damage, but for a spacecraft, that's a different story. There's no air to cool off the hot damaged parts of a ship, or to slow down the really fast rotation after a missile hit. All that damage stays with your ship, one hit and you're as good as dead.
The only actual space battles I could really believe are ones between very large ships. If small spacecraft are involved, their probably going to be drones, as no sane human being is going to get out there and dogfight or intercept other ships amidst a vacuum, and why would we if we can use drones? Thus, it would mostly be between large spacecraft from opposing sides. I'm talking about big, freighter-sized ships, with drone ships. Yet, now we are basically looking at an almost Star Wars-ish battle with real physics (It's called inertia, George Lucas!), or a Star Trek-type confrontation between two ships. Why do you think that so many sci-fi battles have huge vessels? It's cause that will be the only place you can possibly go for millions of miles if you actually make it out alive. You can't have a battle without a fall-back area. We don't just send out planes, we bring them on carriers.
Of course, those two shows feature equally absurd technologies. Star Wars battles are not really "space battles" because all the blunt violations of inertia suggests atmospheric flight. Star Trek has better examples of confrontations between large ships. If such confrontations turn violent, the ship with the best technology usually ends up just plain destroying the other opponent. Often, they don't become fights, because the weaker ship knows it's outmatched- why fight if you can negotiate?
All right. Before you disregard my fictional examples, remember that those short Star-Trek confrontations involve technology that uses methods so advanced they aren't even scientifically possible, yet they are still short. Anything we could build or even theorize doesn't come close to that stuff. If those battles are short, than our battles are going to be much quicker.
In Orbiter, the battles that you plan to simulate are going to be as realistic as possible- right? The damage that ships will cause each other with near-future technologies is going to be huge. What about the rotation from a the impact of a projectile? Your ship will be correcting it's rotation while the other side takes it's next shot. Lasers are the other choice, and if effective enough will still cause a large amount of damage. Space battles might not even be worth fighting. No doubt we would build ships, each side constantly improving, but these weapons aren't going to be used; kind of like the cold war except the fear isn't our annihilation but the weapons annihilating themselves.
I'm not trying to be a negative person here, but I just think that in reality, it probably wouldn't come to this, and as we are striving for realism, then if you ask me I would not choose to implement space battles into Orbiter. Of course, I am curious to see how this turns out. No hard feelings, this isn't a war* after all!!! :lol:
P.S. Also, you could do it this way: Have a huge spaceship with a number of smaller craft which orbit and head towards a ground target, and then that base sends up its own fighters- battles ensue in the air, etc. This would be very difficult to program, but would be awesome. Orbiter doesn't support multiple players (does it?) or a split-screen mode, but maybe that would be the key to good combat, or even for other things, like one person launching another plane into orbit with a TX and then flying it back to a base, while the other player flies into orbit, or something like that. This probably isn't coming anytime soon, but would be pretty cool.
*This applies to Star Wars/Star Trek flame wars. Obviously.
Hope this post wasn't too long.
Last edited:
Vast fury
New member
:bailout:If ever this is gonna be successful, this should be separated from the true orbiter and should have a different name.
:bailout:
:bailout:
jedidia
shoemaker without legs
It's an add-on for Orbiter. It's already seperated as an add-on, and it makes sense to have Orbiter in the name of an orbiter add-on...
That would be a discussion for SFCONSIM (or, more precisely, is a discussion at sfconsim), and I'm pretty sure that the OBSP devs are using that as a resource...
Last edited:
MaverickSawyer
Acolyte of the Probe
You guys should toss in the [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=5134"]F-302[/ame]. It already has 4 hardpoints under the wings. And it is an incredible dogfighter...
RisingFury
OBSP developer
If you mean release a game, separate of Orbiter? We can't do that for several reasons, two biggest ones are that we're not allowed to and second that we don't want to develop a whole new Orbiter, just to run the add-on.
We will listen to the conclusions of various discussions and will implement many strategies. We'll let the actual simulation then figure out which ones are the most practical ones.
It can be done in a few minutes, actually. OBSP is designed so that EVERY plane (right now only planes - anything with engines, wings and control surfaces) can be turned to be OBSP compatible. ETF came up with a way where you create a new config system that tells OBSP information about the vessel you're implementing. Via the config, you tell OBSP where the hardpoints are, what components the vessel should use, how much health and armor it has,...
You can make it OBSP compatible without changing the DLL that powers the vessel. You've already seen we turned the default DeltaGlider, XR2 and F-35 into OBSP with ease
jedidia
shoemaker without legs
Yeah, that's what simulations are for, after all. :thumbup:
dumbo2007
Crazy about real time sims
Yeah that seems like a good idea. Pack the AI with a lot of feasible moves based on relative locations of enemy ships around the DG. Then execute one from the pool which has the greatest likelihood of survival.
If the AI doesnt make it...well one less ship to worry about.
If the AI doesnt make it...well one less ship to worry about.
RisingFury
OBSP developer
Yea, we hear all this talk about lasers and missiles and giant warships, but we'll see what actually works.
Jarvitä
New member
I'm heavily conflicted between the pacifist urge to be revolted by the nature of this addon, and the incredible scope and awesomeness of it on the other hand.
RisingFury
OBSP developer
Don't worry, we'll try not to ruin Orbiter :lol:
I (obviously) have no problem militarizing Orbiter, but would be appalled if the same thing happened in reality. The reason for this is because I view Orbiter as entertainment - just like movies. People do die in Star Wars, yet most people complain about crap physics, not about the millions or billions of people who die when a planet gets destroyed...
The second thing I really enjoy about OBSP is the challenge of creating it. And believe me, certain parts of it are a real pain to program. I remember how proud I was after months of work, when planes flew in formation without going wonkies, or when the autopilot first dropped a bomb right on target, instead of missing 100 m.
I've learned a lot more about C++, programming in general and Orbiter's API in the time I spent working on OBSP. I know for a fact ETF did as well.
Thank you very much! :thumbup:
MaverickSawyer
Acolyte of the Probe
Great! Can't wait for a beta release.
dumbo2007
Crazy about real time sims
Yeah thats one very useful side effect of addon development. Develops your programming logic and coding skills
Do you also use the Standard Template Library by the way for any of your data structures. I just discovered how useful it can be now with all its built in maps, lists and stuff
With your autopilots and Artlav's UAP, Orbiter is going to get some real intelligence now and make scenarios more challenging.
I will probably get into developing autopilots soon too once I am a bit more familiar with PID controllers etc. I am especially looking forward to developing APs for landing vessels inside bases/spaceships etc once I have the collision detection more worked out.
RisingFury
OBSP developer
Do you also use the Standard Template Library by the way for any of your data structures. I just discovered how useful it can be now with all its built in maps, lists and stuff
The structures I use most often are class, struct and std::vector. I don't have a real need to go beyond that.
Orbiter's API allows you to do better than an ordinary PID controller. For example, you know the time it takes for the control surfaces to return to no deflection, you know the current aerodynamic forces acting on the plane and so on.
Sorry for necro but is it gonna be compatible with graphic clients? I'm asking bc all those explosions would blow up my computer if I didn't use D3D9 Client - it hardly works at all at stock D3D7, I'm using Windows 7 and it doesn't have actual D3D7 support.
RisingFury
OBSP developer
Well, we don't have anything to do with the clients. We're just using normal Orbiter's functions to display everything.
You don't need to worry about explosions. The explosions themselves are only 2 smoke particles. There are hundreds of them coming out of the rocket engines, so the explosions aren't the problem
BruceJohnJennerLawso
Dread Lord of the Idiots
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,585
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
I hate to be harsh, but as far as im concerned, learning how to kill in space can take a backseat until we can learn to live in space. I think an orbiter developers time could be used in much better ways. just my opinion, sorry
Rtyh-12
New member
I think it's great! Sure, we do have a lot of great ships, but this is something different. Besides, space combat is educational. It's not so easy to fire a missile exactly in the right direction and at exactly the right speed to hit a small target half an orbit away.
Of course, I approve of this only if it stays in Orbiter, if it were to happen in reality I'd certainly be against it.
Of course, I approve of this only if it stays in Orbiter, if it were to happen in reality I'd certainly be against it.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 37,605
- Reaction score
- 2,327
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
I would prefer a proper 1980s StarWars third world war simulation...
[ame="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative"]Strategic Defense Initiative – Wikipedia[/ame]
[ame="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative"]Strategic Defense Initiative – Wikipedia[/ame]
Similar threads
