Question TTM24

[statickid]

Does anybody know what happened to the To The Moon in 24 Hours author? I really used to enjoy that particular addon back when orbiter 2003 was the thing to have. I kind of forgot about it and then remembered how cool it was recently. I also remember running out of RCS fuel on the way from the space station to the gas station only several hundred meters away, and I learned how to dock by docking those pods. It seems that the addon is still only for O-2003.Would it be difficult to update it? Is there something in the GNU that would allow us to update the meshes to new code if the author is completely never to be heard of again?

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Someone had gotten TTM24 to work with Orbiter '06.

What I liked the most about it (other than the retro-coolness), was how the craft, once docked, became one vehicle. This might can be reproduced with the Interplanetary Modular Spacecraft.

 

[Interceptor]

If someone could E-mail the orginal author,maybe they will update it for orbiter 2010P1.

 

[statickid]

Here's some awesome P. Rawlings art that the addon was inspired by:

http://www.amcsorley.dsl.pipex.com/ttm24_art.htm

I'd post 'em on here but its easier to just browse the page.

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 PM ----------

Ken Bolli is the author's name...

Ken! Are you out there somewhere on the forum still?:hello:

 

[4throck]

This add-on, along with others (like Mercury), started to become "lost" with Orbiter 2006 » 2010.

Can't understand why the new versions can't downgrade to the older ones. With each new version we have better performance, visuals, and more features. That is nice. But we loose a great part of the add-ons.

As developers do this as an hobbies, time and motivation to fix something that worked perfectly doesn't always exist.

 

[Urwumpe]

It is much worse there: The add-on made use of the pre-2006 API, which was still supported as heritage interface in 2006, but became disabled in 2010.

You can't do much there, if you keep all heritage APIs for more than 6 years, Orbiter will be extremely cluttered and debugging and testing will be horrible. Martins already said so pretty often BTW. old APIs will get disabled.

And as add-on developer: It is my add-on, my child of my programming skills. Development does not end with the release. When one older add-on becomes obsolete, because the API had to change. If you don't want to be responsible for your children until the end of time, make them open-source.

When the next Orbiter version is released as stable, I could consider making a restart of TTM24 inplace of Ken, based on new meshes and done open-source. Why wait for the next? Because the API will support such add-on architectures much better then than today.

 

[4throck]

Of course, whatever Martins does is fine for me.
Having a different opinion doesn't mean that I'm not thankful for what I have. And doesn't mean that other ideas are all wrong :thumbup:

My main point is that our community is small. The time available for work is limited.
Its only enough for a single release, not for updates, with a few notable exceptions. That's why many people have moved on. I will do the same if someday my sc3 based add-ons stop working or are impractical to update.

Seriously, there's a limit to what you can do when you have like 4 hours a week to work in add-ons.... Real life does exist :lol: !

 

[Urwumpe]

Of course, whatever Martins does is fine for me.
Having a different opinion doesn't mean that I'm not thankful for what I have. And doesn't mean that other ideas are all wrong :thumbup:

My main point is that our community is small. The time available for work is limited.
Its only enough for a single release, not for updates, with a few notable exceptions. That's why many people have moved on. I will do the same if someday my sc3 based add-ons stop working or are impractical to update.

Everything has a price... you want TTM24? Welcome in my club. I really liked this add-on. Realistic and still you had something that permits you to play a full mission on a rainy afternoon, even to save in current state. That it does not work in 2010 and already made problems in 2006 is really a big loss for the community.

I agree, not every add-on really deserves to be kept alive. And sometimes it is better to organize successors than fighting with millions of old add-ons when you really rather would program something new.

That is why I think open-source is really a blessing for the community, if executed consequently and with proper processes and tools. Open-source add-ons must not die with their creator.

PS: The orbiter community is not that small anymore. Not comparable to FSX, which can sustain a few medium sized commercial add-on makers. But still not a few freaks in their parents basements. We have professionals from many different fields, users of all ages. Make it easy to contribute and most of those will contribute. The big problem is that the step from trivial add-ons that nobody wants, to complex add-ons, that many want, is so large. Even making a multistage2 rocket is pretty complex, if you never learned the theory behind rockets.

Seriously, there's a limit to what you can do when you have like 4 hours a week to work in add-ons.... Real life does exist :lol: !

I would have said that real life is a real curse some time ago... Now I start to wonder, is Orbiter not part of my real life? It is not like some chat room, where half of the users are possibly dogs. If you enter my apartment, you can easily see that there is quite a large section dedicated to Orbiter and a bigger one to spaceflight in general. I am not sure if I am in a luckier position there than others, but I can actually declare that I want to have some hours for Orbiter after work.

 

[Face]

I will do the same if someday my sc3 based add-ons stop working or are impractical to update.

But of course SC3 based add-ons leave a "source-trace", because you can take the INI, read it, and figure out what your intention was. That's why open-sourced add-ons are less prone to vanish in the dark in these scenarios.

So the community is not "losing" your work - if you decide to move on - as it will with closed-source binary releases.

What I don't understand is the notion of "add-ons stop working". They do not stop working suddenly, they simply do not work in a new Orbiter release. They still work fine in the release they were made for. It is not as if the software somehow "grew old".

Add-ons just stop being maintained. And this is solely the add-on author's decision. Nobody else is to blame.

regards,
Face

 

[statickid]

[snip] Add-ons just stop being maintained. And this is solely the add-on author's decision. Nobody else is to blame. [/snip]
/QUOTE]

Yes I agree, what I was really hoping for was that somebody that is still here might perhaps actually know the original author who might be willing to donate some portion of his work to cut the "cost" of making a new one.

I mean know them in that they can still contact them, since quite a few people on here actually have a some non-forum connections. I couldn't find any contact information for Ken, and his websites have gone 404.

For example, if we could have the meshes even an add-on novice like me could possibly hack together a vinka mission. It wouldn't be as grand, but at least the spacecrafts could get some flight time.

To me, it's rather like if something as iconic and "basic" as the DG-IV ended it's life cycle. It was also a nice second step towards doing more complex and realistic missions (Apollo). When I started I began with the indestructo DG, then moved on to the seemingly more forgiving and intermediate TTM24, then started to try and tackle less forgiving missions. I feel like TTM24 was filling a gap that is being exposed. This is something I just started thinking about the other day sort of out of nowhere.

Anyways, the other reason I wanted to start this thread was to see if anyone else missed TTM24 enough to be interested in reviving or re-inventing it. My feeble add-on making skills aren't that great, but I could donate some unoptimized 3D models to such an effort... :thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

My feeble add-on making skills aren't that great, but I could donate some unoptimized 3D models to such an effort... :thumbup:

Why not learn some skills more for it? :lol: Not that everyone should learn C++ now, but there is so much other work that does not need C++ or 3D modelling and which is just a matter of investing some time there.

Like for example making an add-on concept, that can be used as blue print for the actual add-on. Like planning which vessels, bases etc. How do the missions look like? Which documents can be used as references and which data is from which document? Write short episodes in simple English Prosa (AKA short stories) how the add-on should be used. There are so many things to be done before the first mesh is made and the first line of code is written, somebody just has to do it.

Or organizing servers, programmers and meshers for the job.

 

[Face]

Yes I agree, what I was really hoping for was that somebody that is still here might perhaps actually know the original author who might be willing to donate some portion of his work to cut the "cost" of making a new one.

You mean the "cost" of making it compatible to the newest version. The old one is still working, just only for the old Orbiter version. It is not like you can't play it anymore.

For example, if we could have the meshes even an add-on novice like me could possibly hack together a vinka mission. It wouldn't be as grand, but at least the spacecrafts could get some flight time.

So do that. Hack together a vinka mission. Release the SC3 INIs and scenarios, and state the original add-on as prerequisite. Give proper installation instructions for this prerequisite.

I fail to see where such an approach is not possible. It is not like the meshes are encrypted so you can only load them via the original DLLs, now is it? Of course you are not allowed to package them together into a single download archive where you simply put your name in front of. But that isn't the intention, anyway.

 

[statickid]

Oh is that stuff useful? I never made a complex add-on so I am unfamiliar with the process, I would gladly make a thorough planning and resource document as a first step. A design proposal, if you will.

---------- Post added at 07:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 AM ----------

You mean the "cost" of making it compatible to the newest version. The old one is still working, just only for the old Orbiter version. It is not like you can't play it anymore.



So do that. Hack together a vinka mission. Release the SC3 INIs and scenarios, and state the original add-on as prerequisite. Give proper installation instructions for this prerequisite.

I fail to see where such an approach is not possible. It is not like the meshes are encrypted so you can only load them via the original DLLs, now is it? Of course you are not allowed to package them together into a single download archive where you simply put your name in front of. But that isn't the intention, anyway.

I've just never made one before so I don't know what it entails or if what you are talking about is possible or ok to do without permission. Don't worry, I'm not trying to sluff off work that no one has time for, not saying I'm not willing to try myself, I'm also trying to see if anybody else missed TTM24 or knew any information about it.

Even though it is still playable, It can't be intermingled with current missions. It might be nice to fly the xr2 to the lunox station, then transfer to a moon base where an arrowstar is being loaded for an interplanetary mission. There is more to using an add-on than simply using the built in scenarios, as of course, we all know

 

[Face]

I've just never made one before so I don't know what it entails or if what you are talking about is possible or ok to do without permission. Don't worry, I'm not trying to sluff off work that no one has time for, not saying I'm not willing to try myself, I'm also trying to see if anybody else missed TTM24 or knew any information about it.

Well, I just commented on your statement about the mesh availability.

Even though it is still playable, It can't be intermingled with current missions. It might be nice to fly the xr2 to the lunox station, then transfer to a moon base where an arrowstar is being loaded for an interplanetary mission. There is more to using an add-on than simply using the built in scenarios, as of course, we all know

Agreed.

What are the exact reasons it is not working, anyway? CTD? Missing function calls?

 

[Urwumpe]

What are the exact reasons it is not working, anyway? CTD? Missing function calls?

Would need to check this again, but I think it uses the old ovcXXX calls and is based on an older version of VESSEL.

---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------

Oh is that stuff useful? I never made a complex add-on so I am unfamiliar with the process, I would gladly make a thorough planning and resource document as a first step. A design proposal, if you will.

Yes, that kind of document. You must not answer all questions in it, as long as you have the questions written into the document.

 

[4throck]

...That's why open-sourced add-ons are less prone to vanish in the dark in these scenarios....


What I don't understand is the notion of "add-ons stop working". They do not stop working suddenly, they simply do not work in a new Orbiter release. They still work fine in the release they were made for. It is not as if the software somehow "grew old"....

Just some comments if I may:

The reason I love sc3 and other ini based development is exactly that: you can reuse the work and it is open-source. :thumbup: I support 1000% that concept.

My comment to "stop working" meant not being able to continue to do the same development with new Orbiter versions.

As was mentioned before, a realistic multistage rocket, like my VLS addon, was complicated but very interesting to do by the numbers. But that's what I want: to study the rockets, the missions, do some simple but accurate meshes, and try to simulate them, then share with others. And that's what I was talking about... I like to create stuff, not spending all the time messing with code. I have a real life job were I do just that!

Regarding old versions, of course that I can reinstall ORbiter 2006... Heck, I even have MS SpaceSim working on DosBox :lol:!
But there's a limit to the actual possibility of running older Orbiter versions on current hardware. I don't know if really old version (2003?) will run in 64bits OS...


I hope this clears up what I meant by "stop working". It was in a practical, not in a technical sense.


Now back to the topic itself, the fastest way to get starting in reviving TTM24, is to simply reuse the meshes but not redistribute them. Make the user always download the original addon. I can't think of any better "give proper credit" solution.

 

[Face]

Now back to the topic itself, the fastest way to get starting in reviving TTM24, is to simply reuse the meshes but not redistribute them. Make the user always download the original addon. I can't think of any better "give proper credit" solution.

Indeed. I'd see it as a prerequisite. You can even create "exchange" DLLs that way. Distribute only the additional work and write detailed installation instruction. And of course give credit for the meshes and textures in your readme.

I think in a juridically sense, it would still be in the grey area of copyright, but so is the use of a linked list, too :lol: . In regards of respecting the author of a great piece of work, though, I'd say it is appropriate.

regards,
Face

 

[4throck]

Sure it's gray. That area (copyright) is all about lawyers so it's in their interest to make things complicated.

My understanding is that and add-on for an add-on (like what we are discussing now) may still be considered in part "property" of the original add-on creator. It's logical and consistent with the credits given (example: original mesh by mr. X, setup and updates by mr. Y).

In our Orbiter community, that is free and open oriented, I don't see much trouble with this approach.

But it's always possible the mr. Y causes mr. X some damage...
If the original add-on is expanded to give political views, for example.
And that is where the gray area starts. But as long as there's no money or childish egos involved... I think we will live in celestial peace

 

[statickid]

Ming-Jen Wang you are a GENIUS!!!!!

---------- Post added at 06:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 AM ----------

So... the new dll's would simply reference the ttm24 resources but under a different vessel name? like... LANTAR-1 instead of LANTAR?