Discussion Developing Addons for different Orbiter Versions

[Urwumpe]

So With 2016 we have terrain so now uneven areas. But we wanted that.

So with the Change Lander It didn't land well slid around. Even in VB.

So in real spacecraft would they be level by adjusting gear?

Not sure why in sc3 the vessel flys nicely but not the dll?


It would be nice if easier to flatten areas? Not sure how that has come. Not just landing strips but base areas like MoonBase Alpha,.....

I would first of all try to check if the friction coefficients are enough. Remember that Orbiters friction model is rather simple, make them higher than they should be on a runway for landing in terrain.

 

[4throck]

This is the lander I was talking about some posts ago.
Chang'e 4 is around 1400 kg, and on the moon that's nothing.

We did try all sorts of parameters, starting with the DG's defaults, but we couldn't find any combinations that worked with such a low weight.
And all 2016 vessels that do work are heavier (as far as I know).

Anyway, this is something that could be easily tested with just a mesh and a basic .cfg, if the parameters could be set there

 

[Cras]

I would love to dive in to Orbiter 2016 but at the time being, the vast majority of add-ons I rely on simply do not work in it, so my primary install is 2010-p1. I do appreciate the MFD devs out there who update their builds for both 2010 and 2016, I would like to spend more time with 2016 because of terrain, the D3D9 client for it makes it look amazing

 

[Urwumpe]

I would love to dive in to Orbiter 2016 but at the time being, the vast majority of add-ons I rely on simply do not work in it, so my primary install is 2010-p1. I do appreciate the MFD devs out there who update their builds for both 2010 and 2016, I would like to spend more time with 2016 because of terrain, the D3D9 client for it makes it look amazing

What would make you no longer miss 2010p1?

 

[GLS]

So with the Change Lander It didn't land well slid around.

Why not put on the brakes? :shrug:

 

[gattispilot]

Why not put on the brakes? :shrug:

Brakes on a Lunar Lander? So increase Friction or mass? when key pressed

 

[Donamy]

How does that help if it's sliding sideways ?

 

[GLS]

Brakes on a Lunar Lander? So increase Friction or mass? when key pressed

How does that help if it's sliding sideways ?

You set the brakes always on in the code (can't remember the name ATM, but there is a function for it), so when the vessel lands, it stays where it is. It's totally transparent to the user. :shrug:

 

[Cras]

What would make you no longer miss 2010p1?

If the few add-ons that my build is based around could port over. ISS 3.2, Shuttle Fleet, DanSteph's stuff.

 

[Face]

If the few add-ons that my build is based around could port over. ISS 3.2, Shuttle Fleet, DanSteph's stuff.

Dan doesn't consider the current version stable enough to make it worth updating his stuff for it. AFAIK, he waits for the next version - be it a patch or a completely new one.

So for this alone, your requirement makes it a "never". I think this will be the case for most users that want to stick with the work of single authors that stopped updating their work for various reasons.
A better approach might be to offer alternatives that are technically at least equal, but I think the loyalty effect will kill even those in the long run.

A bit of a dilemma, really. :shrug:

 

[Donamy]

Never look back, is my motto.

 

[gattispilot]

If the few add-ons that my build is based around could port over. ISS 3.2, Shuttle Fleet, DanSteph's stuff.

Well There is alternative to Shuttle Fleet. Sure it doesn't have everything but most.


We have ISS to Z

 

[GLS]

Never look back, is my motto.

I like this one:

 

[Urwumpe]

Never look back, is my motto.

I prefer some bigger cosmic wisdom there (Because I like retro stuff... especially for getting a feeling how long the way has been that we clumsy monkeys have come.)

Wen considered the nature of time and understood that the universe is, instant by instant, recreated anew. Therefore, he understood, there is in truth no past, only a memory of the past. Blink our eyes, and the world you see next did not exist when you closed them. Therefore, he said, the only appropriate state of mind is surprise. The only state of the heart is joy. The sky you see now, you have never seen before. The perfect moment is now. Be glad of it.

 

[Donamy]

Are you gonna eat that banana ?

 

[Cras]

Its a dilemma for sure. I can break away and use 2016 but it ends up being just a side thing to try the new features. When I want to get serious, I want to go back and fly the manifest I drew up for myself to build a new spacestation, and those plans require addons that just dont translate. So for me its going to be 2016 on the side, but the main girl is still 2010p1.

Not advocating my position at all, dont want to give the impression I am saying everyone should stick with 2010. The more people that use the new stuff the better for the overall health of the sim I reckon.

 

[Urwumpe]

Its a dilemma for sure. I can break away and use 2016 but it ends up being just a side thing to try the new features. When I want to get serious, I want to go back and fly the manifest I drew up for myself to build a new spacestation, and those plans require addons that just dont translate. So for me its going to be 2016 on the side, but the main girl is still 2010p1.

Not advocating my position at all, dont want to give the impression I am saying everyone should stick with 2010. The more people that use the new stuff the better for the overall health of the sim I reckon.

Well, I more wonder about features/functionality added by add-ons, not specific add-ons.



After all, if people look back, something might be missing in 2016, that 2010 had. But that does not mean that 2016 must be exactly like 2010 again and have the same add-ons. How could 2016 be better than 2010 otherwise? So, working on adding the missing functionality would be necessary, while also going ahead and not wait for specific closed source add-ons to be revived.


For example: Maybe it would be better to create an open-source "Common Vessel Base Library" middleware that unites Ummu, UCGO and other add-ons instead of using the same combination in many add-ons the whole time.



So, when the next version of Orbiter comes, only one add-on library needs to be raised to the new standard and hopefully, most of the backwards compatibility for other add-ons would be at least reduced to recompile the add-on DLL against the new middleware version.


Or having better editors for bases again, but make it easier to add content to Orbiter. The "World of 2001" is one such add-on that pretty much suffers from the more complex terrain now.



Sorry, but I am progressive and I prefer to talk about solutions instead of talking about problems...

 

[4throck]

The WO2001 bases work with terrain, once you remove a few meshes, remove shadows, etc.
But with no editor it's a bit of trial and error.

The main issue is the extra work and time needed, for something that I agree adds very little.
A terrain flattening tool would be best for this, since it could be automated (we have base center coordinates and radius on the base config).

A proper solution would terrain export to a mesh, so that one could model over existing terrain.
Sketchup did this back in the day with Google Earth terrain. You could model based on terrain and satellite images.

 

[Urwumpe]

A proper solution would terrain export to a mesh, so that one could model over existing terrain.
Sketchup did this back in the day with Google Earth terrain. You could model based on terrain and satellite images.

Yes, I wonder if a similar tool could also be made for Orbiter, just using a selected Orbiter data set as terrain reference.

 

[fred18]

A terrain flattening tool would be best for this, since it could be automated (we have base center coordinates and radius on the base config).

I really believe that this is the key for this topic. I have not studied the terrain structure but IMO basically when you put a base or a portion of base that square area (square defined by 4 couple of coordinates or better by the center and a size) should be flat at a certain altitude, automatically. This means that the particular rendering of the base part overrides the overall terrain rendering for that portions, just joining the edge (smoothly if possible). This would allow that you do not need to modify the terrain file or anything, you just put in the base and that's it. and if you remove it, the land below will just be rendered back as before the base was there.

I think that if this somehow comes to orbiter suddenly all the bases could be imported with a very little work and that would be super!