Orbiter wish list

[Pipcard]

I think that would be a number one priority too. If we had a video capture-export straight to Mpeg type thing, making Orbiter films would be vastly easier.

I was referring to more camera view options. Something like [ame="http://orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=3657"]Fly-By Camera[/ame], but better.
But video capture would be awesome.

 

[Donamy]

I was referring to more camera view options. Something like Fly-By Camera, but better.
But video capture would be awesome.

You can set up camera views in the presets, then choose them in the presets after pressing cntrl+F1.

 

[Pipcard]

You can set up camera views in the presets, then choose them in the presets after pressing cntrl+F1.

But I already know about ctrl+F1.

 

[Star Voyager]

Here's an interesting proposal for STS:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1983/1983 - 2106.html

 

[C3PO]

Quite frankly, I would have to disagree with you there. I love having Orulex Collisions UCGO turned on, but the lack of fire & explosions when smashing into the side of a mountain doesn't really bother me. The way I see it, Orbiter features need to be implemented in the minimal time available to developers & the good Doctor, and as such only features that enhance the experience should be focused on. If youve smashed into the ISS at 5 m/s I think you already know how the occupants feel about you :lol:.

:ditto:

The first "collision" thing I'd like implemented is failed docking. Nothing fancy, just a bounce off effect with random rotation to tell you to be more careful next time

 

[jedidia]

Orbiter features need to be implemented in the minimal time available to developers & the good Doctor,

You know, I might just start refering to Martins as "Doctor" in the future...

 

[TMac3000]

I'm sure the Good Doctor did his best, eh?

:tiphat:

 

[Pipcard]

Space Engine-like terrain graphics (but that's unlikely)

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

:ditto:

The first "collision" thing I'd like implemented is failed docking. Nothing fancy, just a bounce off effect with random rotation to tell you to be more careful next time

I like that idea. It might not be all that hard to implement it in a plugin module either, although the actual mechanics of docking probably allow for a little bit of margin.

You know, I just had a bit of a :idea:. Maybe inert attachment points might be a good system to build collisions around. If a collisions system scanned for any attachment points with a id of CP (collision point) or NP (normal point) and used them for its reference locations, it might make more sense than collision meshes or internal code. Adding collision points into config files would make updating add-ons for the system a lot easier too. Interesting thought...

---------- Post added at 21:54 ---------- Previous post was at 21:07 ----------

Space Engine-like terrain graphics (but that's unlikely)

Never been able to get that running on my PC

Whats it like?

 

[Pipcard]

Whats it like?

Look it up on YouTube.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Look it up on YouTube.

I know how to do that, but I was wondering if you could point out particular pieces of it that you wanted to have.

 

[Pipcard]

I know how to do that, but I was wondering if you could point out particular pieces of it that you wanted to have.

Just the highly detailed terrain. Okay, Orulex already does that.

 

[Bloodworth]

Just the highly detailed terrain. Okay, Orulex already does that.

Only 2 problems with Orulex...
1)incompatability with UCGO, at least insofar as breathable bases.
2)without standardized mapping the terrain is varriable, never really the same twice, also it comes up with some odd terrain features.

 

[Keatah]

Up-to-date automated avionics. Flight data computers. Auto navigation.
Collision detection.
Hi-fidelity sensor and systems simulation.
Procedurally rendered textures and contour mapping. Built-in Orulex.
Gaming-like environment allowing more versatility controlling UMMU and other objects.
A real fly-by camera & chase camera.
Ability to model monster sized objects like RingWorld and Rama with good interaction.

Separation of the code into three parts.
1- Rendering.
2- Game-playing logic and environment.
3- Physics.

I currently feel that Orbiter has the potential to outgrow having one person working on it. Sooner or later it has to be opened up and others bought on-board.

These are directions I want to see Orbiter go in. It may take another 10 years to get there. But just imagine the hardware capabilities of systems then!

---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 PM ----------

One more thing, despite all the superb and outstanding add-ons, and the solar-system-sized scale of things, I feel a little claustrophobic in the Orbiter environment. Not that I want a whole galaxy to explore. No. I mean I feel more "freedom" when playing Doom.

I want to see more dynamic planets. With population centers, dynamic atmospheres, weather, EM interferences and magnetic fields and aurorae. All kinds of things to say, "yep, that's a planet alright!" And yet I'm not asking for RPG-like "stuff". I feel things are too linear and monolithic, too vertical, too drab.

I want a toolkit. I don't know what kind. But I want one.

I want to see Orbiter under a renewed and continued development plan over the next 10 years.

Whether anybody agrees with me or not - I'm just telling you how *I* want it. I'm also not opposed to supplying funding for such radical changes and modernizations.

 

[Hartmann]

:ditto:

The first "collision" thing I'd like implemented is failed docking. Nothing fancy, just a bounce off effect with random rotation to tell you to be more careful next time

It could be done like in Microsoft space simulator solve this part of the simulator very well. shutting down the simulation and show a sign: you exceed X m/s speed or G force value

 

[Eccentrus]

well, if the good doctor can work together with the creator of space engine that would be great, but perhaps only in my dreams. And modular physics just like what KSP have, I mean that's the only thing realistic about that game :lol: (no offense HarvesteR I love it) and orbiter still doesn't have it.

A highly detailed model of the probe, gigabytes in size, for all our awe and wonder

 

[jedidia]

2)without standardized mapping the terrain is varriable, never really the same twice,

errr... what? Sure Orulex produces always the same terrain with the same seed.

1)incompatability with UCGO, at least insofar as breathable bases.

The UCGO way of handling thing is inherently incompatible with any kind of terrain, really. That would be fixable on UCGO side, but with any terrain collision being pretty much a hack currently I understand why Dan does not address it.

You know, I just had a bit of a . Maybe inert attachment points might be a good system to build collisions around.

Oh god, the hack...

Collision for terrain is actually in the making for the next Orbiter release, I'm sure that system will lend itself to some adaptation for making vessel-vessel collisions.

 

[Henobic Theosapien]

Better center of gravity model for Pluto-Charon like system.
And..,
Some AIs controlled ships or objects (or even PEOPLE!!) would make the orbiter world a bit alife..:thumbup:
(Sometimes it feels scary to live (not literally, hahaha :lol: ) in the very silent orbiter world :shifty: )

 

[statickid]

Better center of gravity model for Pluto-Charon like system.
And..,
Some AIs controlled ships or objects (or even PEOPLE!!) would make the orbiter world a bit alife..:thumbup:
(Sometimes it feels scary to live (not literally, hahaha :lol: ) in the very silent orbiter world :shifty: )

Space is big, empty, and lonely. For me the animated bases are enough, I feel like you wouldn't encounter many ships (read:zero) except those you were trying to find

 

[C3PO]

It could be done like in Microsoft space simulator solve this part of the simulator very well. shutting down the simulation and show a sign: you exceed X m/s speed or G force value

That's not what I'm talking about. The docking in Orbiter ignores offset angles during docking. You can (with a bit of practice) dock with a 90° error, and you just snap to the correct orientation when the two docking "points" are within the limits.