What kind of add-on do you think would change Orbiter forever?

[Pyromaniac605]

8 polygons, actually--you need one for each side, and you can't have polygons crossing each other.

I could see it being done as two, just have two flat shapes intersecting each other with the same tree texture on both sides. :idk:

Darren

 

[Istochnikov]

I could see it being done as two, just have two flat shapes intersecting each other with the same tree texture on both sides. :idk:

Darren

Exactly 4. And i can give a data:
When Orbiter 2006 was released, the polygon-hi-top limit was 10000. You can use more, but your performance will be impacted negatively, comformly you increase the polygon count.

Now we're in 2010. If the top stills be 10000, i don't know. I only know that (on my desktop B -see signature- the framerate slows to 12 FPS when i have around 14 airplanes (each one with an average of 25000-30000 polygons) on the same terminal (SRC Port with ~20000 polygons)... i'm talking about 440000 polygons on an area...

You need 2500 4-polygon trees for having 10000 polygons. AND you don't need'em when you are orbiting. Only when you are below 2500 meters.

 

[Hielor]

I could see it being done as two, just have two flat shapes intersecting each other with the same tree texture on both sides. :idk:

Darren

Uh....

No. I said exactly why it has to be done as 8 in Orbiter. Since you apparently failed to notice either, I'll list the reasons again:
- Orbiter doesn't have two-side polygons. If you need two sides, you need two polygons.
- Orbiter doesn't support polygons that intersect each other--one of them will always appear on top of the other, since one of them is drawn first.

 

[Pyromaniac605]

Ok, so it is possible, but not within Orbiters graphics engine.

Darren

 

[craigh]

Interesting thread. Quite a few responses confusing Evolutionary and Revolutionary...though it would be cool to have a Fight Simulator near ground experience coupled seamlessly with the spaceflight experience.

Personally:

I'd really like to see the big brains of this outfit get together and collectively hammer out Collision Detection and surfaces I can't float through. I think that project would be the single biggest WOW Factor item of them all like a number of folks here.

That may spark a solution for the the lack of friction on planet surfaces too. I hate bad landings and sliding all over creation or through structures. So after Collision Detection, A Friction and Gravity element to temper and punish me for my bad piloting.

That buoyancy function mentioned by others would be interesting on gas giants. Might be fun to go gas mining. Would it be possible to modify the Aerobrake MFD to do it??? Wasn't there a Buoyancy MFD or utility years ago that could be evolved?

Down the road It would be neat to see some ability to do some earth moving...why? I'd like to someday see a base construction sim added to the fabric. Lifting components to the moon or wherever, landing them, move some dirt, assemble. Or drop off an automated factory to mine materials and build components. Come back later and start building a base from the bits, sort of a Sim City meets Tycoon, meets the Orbiter creation. That could be incorporated into the past attempts at coming up with economic reasons/add-ons to move stuff around.

CraigH

 

[HAL9001]

Just combine Orbiter with the ground texture and "real-scenes" experience of Google-earth, the realistic physics of Aerofly 5 and th many possibilitis of FSX (including AI-plains, etc)! :lol::lol::lol:

 

[Artlav]

Unless someone prove me wrong, the problem with collision detection is not that noone would make one, but that it won't work properly without core integration.

Here's an example for you:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gZN-5hl428"]YouTube - Visosad 070426 vessel-vessel collision detection demo[/ame]
And there is no way to stop that shaking. Any time acceleration scatters all vessels, since there is no core to keep them in place, like normal landed ones.

True, some special cases might work believably, like Shukra station, but it's still far from any kind of perfection.



The trees are possible.

Non-boring trees, however, is not that easy.

 

[Urwumpe]

about forests, there is more effective way around:

http://www.antisphere.com/Research/Forest.php

Which would be more suitable to the altitudes and speeds of a typical Orbiter scenario.

 

[fort]

On my wish list:

- A module capable of doubling the length of a day to enable me, from time to time, to fly :yes:.

 

[Urwumpe]

On my wish list:

- A module capable of doubling the length of a day to enable me, from time to time, to fly :yes:.

Same here, including support for add-on development time.

 

[HAL9001]

Unless someone prove me wrong, the problem with collision detection is not that noone would make one, but that it won't work properly without core integration.

Here's an example for you:
YouTube - Visosad 070426 vessel-vessel collision detection demo
And there is no way to stop that shaking. Any time acceleration scatters all vessels, since there is no core to keep them in place, like normal landed ones.

True, some special cases might work believably, like Shukra station, but it's still far from any kind of perfection.



The trees are possible.

Non-boring trees, however, is not that easy.

excactly what we need, but it should crash UMMU's and DGIVS, too.

 

[Urwumpe]

excactly what we need, but it should crash UMMU's and DGIVS, too.

And drop leaves, offer shadow, contain chipmunks and burn. :facepalm:

Did some mention yet that Orbiter is a spaceflight simulator and no lumberjack simulator? *whistles lumberjack song*

 

[Wishbone]

we need bears to shoot at after a botched re-entry... Sawing trees is just part of a rescue operation, clearing up the LZ for the helo to pick up cosmonauts...

 

[fort]

Forests, I do not know. ..but I remember the last Gazza's screenshots for STS payloads for which it had tried to create and then finally realized (but this version was never published) borders made of hedges (?), of trees (?), light, in terms of polygones, nearby the runways of KSC.

This was not big thing but a little more into the background.

I'll like some day to create the lighthouse ( i've some sketchup and 3ds of it ) near KSC with the light turning, based on a dll i suppose or a spacecraft ( spacecraft.dll ) ini.

 

[garyw]

Why not just take the tree meshes from Overton and plant them at KSC?

 

[fort]

Overton island ? Yes ( but i've just see that the dds are 1.3...mo...;meaning 1.3 x n trees in memory ? ).

And i remember also an old addon made by Harsway ( ? ) for KSC to give it trees .

And here a procedure ( in french ) to create a tree in low poly with Blender:

http://www.game-corp.net/tutorial-62.html

 

[garyw]

Yes, it's over on orbit hangar. One of the nice ways of giving a base a bit more life and acitivty is to add additional meshes. For all my ground bases I've added the communications dishes from Earth 1974 and a Prelude Base.

 

[fort]

One of the nice ways of giving a base a bit more life and acitivty is to add additional meshes.

I've many things like that here, often in 3 ds, and, by example, a communication center with enough detailled antennas but i'm not able, yet, to finishe them in anim8or, considering my poor knowledge in that matter and to be sure to do not spend hours and hours on it.

I'm, by example, on city's detailled nightlights since i think around one year. One year !

 

[kevinvr]

It's been done, Dan Steph's UCGO!

 

[craigh]

Artlav,

I'm backing up to your post #67 in this string regarding Noone's Visosad. In lay-person's terms (I'm NOT a programmer)...what would it take for core integration? Also, what were the hurdles that prevented continued development?

I remember when Visosad was originally being discussed and the possibilities fascinated me and the spin-off applications were tremendous to the overall Orbiter experience.

Thanks ahead of time.
CraigH