So many addons that do not work

[gagarin]

I have been an orbiter fan since its early conceptions and way back then you could guarantee that if you downloaded an addon then it would work !
Nowadays I find that more addons fail than work - especially with the advent of new technology
Because of this , I mow find myself moving away from this sim , which is a pity , as the concept for this is nothing short of amazing
Just a personal observation
Thank you

 

[gattispilot]

Well I have been a member since 2007. Yes it seems that things don't work. But I think they are based off orbiter xxxx. Some you can retro fit. But some the code is loss as is the person who created it.

I know people want this or that based off Orbiter2006 to work on 2016/2024,......

 

[Urwumpe]

If you think this is a problem here, try looking into the Steam workshop of Rimworld. About half of the mods there is already obsolete.

 

[gamer19]

Yeah, know the feeling
feeling that our beloved sim maaaybe crashes a little bit too often
but abandon it just like that ? leave it like a used service module ? nah... I'll probably play it until my very last days
at least I have my game within a game (AMSO) which have all the files it needed in it's own separate world (folders) so it crashes much rarely.
that being said, it's not like it doesn't crashes.
for some reason, it still does - funny thing (and maybe a piece of advice?) often when game crashes, you try to load the VERY SAME scenario - and it works !?!
I kid you not. just try it. especially in AMSO.

 

[Arvil]

It’s the fact that many add-ons were written for the past versions of the day, but many were not updated for newer versions, many because the developer is no longer here. But, there are enough that either still work, or work close enough, or have been updated by developers still here, that it still keeps the sim interesting by finding what still works. I find plenty to do by visiting over 200 bodies, they pretty much all still work in O2016. Keep a-hunting’, plenty of stuff still works, and it’s free.

 

[MarkWatney2015]

Yeah there's many of them that do not work anymore in newer versions. But you can make them compatible in your Orbiter installation if you know how to. For me the easiest ones to port are those addons that run on Spacecraft3/4 and Multistage2/MS2015 code, just a little bit of rewritting either the scns or txt files yourself will do

 

[PDF]

@Gargantua2024 can you share with us all how this is done. Make a tutorial video would be best

 

[Face]

Because of this , I mow find myself moving away from this sim , which is a pity , as the concept for this is nothing short of amazing

To where are you moving, if I might ask? KSP2?

 

[gagarin]

To where are you moving, if I might ask? KSP2?

I find myself playing Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager - at least I can carry out sprace missions

 

[Urwumpe]

I find myself playing Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager - at least I can carry out sprace missions

Pretty different kind of game compared to Orbiter. Regarding the thread opener, I would have expected Reentry.

 

[Face]

I find myself playing Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager - at least I can carry out sprace missions

I'd have expected some of the commercial tools/games, but I can see the appeal of BASPM as well.

 

[nbcfrosty]

I have been an orbiter fan since its early conceptions and way back then you could guarantee that if you downloaded an addon then it would work !
Nowadays I find that more addons fail than work - especially with the advent of new technology

That's because Orbiter has undergone 20 years of development. I'd say old DLL vessels are a hit or miss in terms of compatibility. Some CTD outright, others experience ground handling issues that actually can be mitigated. MFD's on the other hand have excellent compatibility. 20+ year old MFD's are still working. Celestial bodies addons from 20+ years ago still work. Surface bases can be partially made to work: Just update the base cfg format from pre-2006 format to 2006+, remove surface tiles, add dx9 flt file, place the file in the appropriate Base folder in the parent body. The spacecraft/multistage vessels also exhibit decent/good compatibility for being 20+ years old. They are a god send because they allow vessels to be defined in simple open text format, and so with an updated dll they can be fully supported today. As it is, spacecraft2+ vessels can be handled using the spacecraft4.dll and compatibility is good for the most part. multistage.dll vessels will exhibit issues with the stages/fairings jettisoning in the wrong position, but other than that work when using Legacy Touchdown Points.

All in all, although I think at face value the compatibility picture looks bad, a lot of issues are simple things like making sure not to override certain DLL's, cfg files, updating base cfg format, making sure Earth.cfg isn't overwritten, etc. Things that good tooling will solve.

 

[Buck Rogers]

Which addons do you miss the most?
Maybe someone has/will make an update (there are still many on my wish/to-do list) and post, sadly some, like the DG4 are not repairable, but you never know.

 

[N_Molson]

I find myself playing Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager - at least I can carry out sprace missions

You do have very good taste Sir !

I was one of the devs

 

[cbradbury]

I have never moved on from Orbiter 2010 for exactly that reason. I sacrifice graphics for variety and playability.

I was thinking of installing 2016 for the soyuz 7 and the updated AMSO. However when I found that the latter needed a graphics client I that stayed my hand. I always loath to start downloading system stuff if I can avoid it. So I stay with the outdated version - very apt, as I am pretty outdated, too.

 

[Urwumpe]

I have never moved on from Orbiter 2010 for exactly that reason. I sacrifice graphics for variety and playability.

I was thinking of installing 2016 for the soyuz 7 and the updated AMSO. However when I found that the latter needed a graphics client I that stayed my hand. I always loath to start downloading system stuff if I can avoid it. So I stay with the outdated version - very apt, as I am pretty outdated, too.

The graphics client is no system module, but an Orbiter extension module.

 

[Buck Rogers]

However when I found that the latter needed a graphics client I that stayed my hand. I always loath to start downloading system stuff if I can avoid it

Go for Orbiter2024, gfx client preinstalled, works out of the box.

 

[cbradbury]

2024 sounds good, then. Is there a way to search for addons that specifically work for that version rather than scroll through the entire list?

 

[Buck Rogers]

Orbiter2024 is still "quite new", only a few addons have been made/updated for it. Most of the Orbiter2016 addons should work but there are exceptions/caveats and most haven't been tested. I don't think there's a direct filter? But anything released or updated since Jan. 25' probably has a note if it's compatible. Otherwise please test and post your results.
IMO you need all 3: Orbiter10/16/24 each has it's merits and legacy of addons.
And don't worry about D3D9 gfx client for Orbiter 2016, as @Urwumpe says it's just an Orbiter extension, it doesn't get installed into your system, you just put it in your Orbiter folder. Welcome to new worlds.

 

[jarmonik]

Having a lot of add-ons that do not work and causes a system crashes must be very annoying for users. So, is there something we could do about it ?

1) I suppose we could try to improve debugging and compatibility from orbiter side but it does have it's limits. It would require people with necessary debugging skills to start browsing through add-ons. This should wait until we have a working VulkanClient.

2) Better development tools could help re-making older add-ons.

3) Should we have some kind of compatibility list that could be used to prevent enabling add-ons known not to work. Or the other way around, confirmed to work.