What do you think orbiter is?

[James.Denholm]

I agree with Bullethead. We "play" Orbiter because we like to do so, because we find it fun. If it wasn't fun, we wouldn't do it, because there's better things to do with your time than sit infront of a computer, falling into depression. When I say fun, I don't mean delirious, kiddie playground fun. Just enjoyment.

Does any of this make sence?

 

[tblaxland]

I agree with Bullethead. We "play" Orbiter because we like to do so, because we find it fun. If it wasn't fun, we wouldn't do it, because there's better things to do with your time than sit infront of a computer, falling into depression. When I say fun, I don't mean delirious, kiddie playground fun. Just enjoyment.

Does any of this make sence?

Sure it does but some more contra-examples to mind:

1. I do my job because I enjoy it. It doesn't make my job a game but does make my job game-like at times.
2. A professional rugby player has rugby for his job. That doesn't make rugby any less a game, but playing rugby professionally would be job-like at times.

Call it what you like, just don't be restrictive about it. Classical categorisation only leads to limitations.

BTW, I have had some "delirious, kiddie playground fun" whilst playing Orbiter .

 

[Kyle]

Well, if thats the Case Space Shuttle Simulator 2007 is a game.

 

[ryan]

Well, if thats the Case Space Shuttle Simulator 2007 is a game.

I dont like Space Shuttle Simulator becuase you have to pay for it,

 

[tblaxland]

I dont like Space Shuttle Simulator becuase you have to pay for it,

Reminds me of a quote:
"Despite of the cost of living, it's still popular" - Kathleen Norris.

 

[Linguofreak]

BTW, I have had some "delirious, kiddie playground fun" whilst playing Orbiter .

Yes...

Like firing Mir with HARP.

Well, if thats the Case Space Shuttle Simulator 2007 is a game.

AFAICT, pretty much.

 

[Bullethead]

Btw Bullethead, what games do you work on, could you post a link?

I work for Storm Eagle Studios. We've got a game of the Russo-Japanese War that's been out a couple years and we're getting close to releasing one about 1916 in the North Sea.

And BTW, I have a lot of fun playing Orbiter, even if deep down I think it's just "Super Mario for wannabe rocket scientists" I wouldn't hang out here if it was otherwise. I didn't mean to ruffly any feathers.

 

[ar81]

Source http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game

game
1. an amusement or pastime: children's games.
2. the material or equipment used in playing certain games: a store selling toys and games.
3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
4. a single occasion of such an activity, or a definite portion of one: the final game of the season; a rubber of three games at bridge.
5. the number of points required to win a game.
6. the score at a particular stage in a game: With five minutes to play, the game was 7 to 0.
7. a particular manner or style of playing a game: Her game of chess is improving.
8. anything resembling a game, as in requiring skill, endurance, or adherence to rules: the game of diplomacy.
9. a trick or strategy: to see through someone's game.
10. fun; sport of any kind; joke: That's about enough of your games.
11. wild animals, including birds and fishes, such as are hunted for food or taken for sport or profit.
12. the flesh of such wild animals or other game, used as food: a dish of game.
13. any object of pursuit, attack, abuse, etc.: The new boy at school seemed to be fair game for practical jokers.
14. Informal. a business or profession: He's in the real-estate game.
15. Archaic. fighting spirit; pluck.

It looks like playing orbiter, writing a story, learning astrophysics, or doing anything that requires a skill is a game. I see my work as a game (and I am being paid for playing)... I see making addons as a game... I see life like a game...

So if someone is going to ban someone at a gaming forum for talking about other games that do not belong to the gaming company, it means that your options on what to say would be very limited.

The difference with Orbiter is that it is not a commercial game but an educational game.
Unfortunately, gaming companies have created that difference, since they make games that are NOT educational, and I would say that sometimes they are "antieducational" as they promote the wrong values.

Since essentially everything we do is a game, if we want to narrow the definition and define game as equivalent of commercial game, Orbiter is not a game.
There is no doubt that orbiter is a space flight simulator, so those who say it is just a game are plain wrong. At most they should say "both".
But if it is a game or not, it depends on the definition.
Unfortunately dictionary.com is not up to date to what happens in the net, so it has a conventional and outdated definition of game.

 

[simonpro]

I've been staying out of this thread for the reasons stated in my last post, but this tickled me:

So if we define game as equivalent of commercial game, Orbiter is not a game.

From now on I'm going to define "football player" as "Kim Källström" and anyone who happens not to be Kimmi-K is therefore not a football player. With the exception of Ronaldo, of course, who's a (bleep).

 

[ar81]

I've been staying out of this thread for the reasons stated in my last post, but this tickled me:


From now on I'm going to define "football player" as "Kim Källström" and anyone who happens not to be Kimmi-K is therefore not a football player. With the exception of Ronaldo, of course, who's a (bleep).

It happens in gaming forums that talking about other games is a reason to be banned or to have threads or posts locked or deleted.
Should they ban, lock or delete when you talk about Orbiter, which is not a commercial game, based on the fact that it is a game and not an educational tool?

The definition of game is too wide and ambiguous.

 

[FordPrefect]

To answer the original question:

42

 

[Notebook]

I work for Storm Eagle Studios. We've got a game of the Russo-Japanese War that's been out a couple years and we're getting close to releasing one about 1916 in the North Sea.

And BTW, I have a lot of fun playing Orbiter, even if deep down I think it's just "Super Mario for wannabe rocket scientists" I wouldn't hang out here if it was otherwise. I didn't mean to ruffly any feathers.

Battle of Jutland?

N.

 

[ar81]

And BTW, I have a lot of fun playing Orbiter, even if deep down I think it's just "Super Mario for wannabe rocket scientists" I wouldn't hang out here if it was otherwise. I didn't mean to ruffly any feathers.

The difference is that rocket scientists use to be grounded all the time, while astronauts are the ones who fly vessels like we do. Another difference is that you do not need to learn about orbital mechanics to play Super Mario. With Super Mario kids can win a contest, but with astrophysics they could get a job when they grow up.

And the good side of the analogy is that for kids it is cool to pilot a zillion dollar craft without caring about dad telling them about not to break it, just like you don't care about breaking Super Mario.

 

[Bullethead]

The difference is that rocket scientists use to be grounded all the time, while astronauts are the ones who fly vessels like we do.

Most rocket scientists have more sense than to ride on rockets. They built the things so they know only too well how likely they are to fail spectacularly. That's why the grew up to be rocket scientists instead of astronauts :tounge:

Another difference is that you do not need to learn about orbital mechanics to play Super Mario. With Super Mario kids can win a contest, but with astrophysics they could get a job when they grow up.

The only Orbiter users who need to know anything about orbital mechanics are add-on developers, especially those who make navigational MFDs. That's all WAY over my head, so salute to them.


However, regular schmucks like me only need to know enough to use these add-ons. And most of what we have to know is the sequence of button pushes on the MFDs, and maybe which 1 or 2 numbers to watch in each stage to know when to push the autoburn button. We need no more than the most basic sketch view of the actual orbital mechanics involved.

Granted, that's only if you use the "advanced MFDs". You have the option to do things the hard way if you want, and then you really do need to know what you're doing. But that's not realistic IMHO. AFAIK, astronauts do very little manual flying and even less actual navigation calculations. They actually don't have to do any of either, given what we can do from the ground, and they're too expensive to get off the ground to waste their time with such stuff anyway. They need to get on with the manual labor (experiments, fixing Hubble, etc.) and PR photo ops we sent them up there for.

So to me, if you what you want is a simulation from the astronaut's POV, you shouldn't worry about orbital mechanics. Just get all the "advanced MFDs" you can find to fly the ship automatically and spend all your real interactive play time fiddling with UMMU and any RMS your ship has, or panning around with CameraMFD to pretend you're taking observations. If instead you want a simulation of doing orbital mechanics yourself, then you'll need a completely different game. One in black and white where your POV is in mission control or behind a desk in an office, and you have to move a virtual slide rule (because nobody has a real one these days) while looking up logarithms and such things in reference tables. At any more advanced point in time, computers do all that number crunching :tounge:

 

[ar81]

The only Orbiter users who need to know anything about orbital mechanics are add-on developers, especially those who make navigational MFDs. That's all WAY over my head, so salute to them.


However, regular schmucks like me only need to know enough to use these add-ons. And most of what we have to know is the sequence of button pushes on the MFDs, and maybe which 1 or 2 numbers to watch in each stage to know when to push the autoburn button. We need no more than the most basic sketch view of the actual orbital mechanics involved.

I must disagree. To reach ISS you need orbital mechanics.
The concepts in this tutorial [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=3074"]Tutorial: DG to ISS[/ame] are orbital mechanics.

Interplanetary travel is not only pushing a button and let a burn to take place. See this tutorial [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=3403"]Tutorial: Concepts for Interplanetary MFD 4.2.1[/ame]

Physics has 2 sides. One is to understand the math and the other is to understand the problem. Math is performed by MFDs, but you still have the problem.

So orbiter makes us to become familiar with concepts we were not used to. We still need to solve problems. The level and complexity of problems you want to solve rely on you. Orbiter is the tool for that.

This is why Orbiter has been good for my workshops for primary school kids I had in 2006, and it is also a delight for aeronautic engineers, NASA and ESA personnel who also play Orbiter. So it is simple and complex at the same time, unlike Super Mario.

As for rocket scientists, one thing is to design a rocket, and a different one is to fly it.

With Orbiter the boundary between user and developer is hazy. When you edit a scenario you are stepping into the realm of developers, and you can make simple or complex mods.

In my case I made Mesh Wizard. Was I a wizard for making it? No. 3D rotation matrix was already invented. So making the tool was more a matter of persistence and method than mathematical genius. Even if Mesh Wizard is intensive in geometry and math, code is in charge of handling it. I only had to turn my understanding of a problem into code, not into math.

So those are the reasons why I disagree a little bit.

 

[Bullethead]

So orbiter makes us to become familiar with concepts we were not used to. We still need to solve problems. The level and complexity of problems you want to solve rely on you. Orbiter is the tool for that.

I dunno. I think the complexity of the problem remains the same. What you change is how much of it you have to deal with. And the less of the problem you deal with, the less you need to know about it, until you're reduced to just knowing what general orders to give or buttons to push. This is how managers who know nothing of what happens on the factory floor can still run the factory

For example, here I sit typing a reply to you in this thread on this forum. To be able to do that, I just opened my browser and clicked on several links until this reply window came up. I have only the foggiest general idea of how today's browsers work and navigate around the web, and I have no idea at all of how this forum's software interacts with the browser. But I don't need to know any of that, I just need to know how to start the browser and which links to click.

It used to be, however, that you needed to know a lot of arcane stuff to post a message somewhere. There were all kinds of strange commands that you had written down on a cheat sheet. I think the underlying process is still generally the same, but now today's software does all the work automatically and you're reduced to just knowing how to start it. And I'd wager that, with the exception of those who write browsers and related programs, nobody today knows much, if anything, about the underlying process behind using a forum like this.

So it is with me in Orbiter. All I know about orbital mechanics is that the overall problem of getting from point A to point B can be broken up into a series of several steps, and that various MFDs do everything required in each step at the touch of a button or 2. To me, this is directly analogous to using a browser to get to this forum.

• Launch = launch browser
• Eject = click on forum home page bookmark
• MCC = click on Off Topic topic
• Insert = click on this thread
• Landing = click on the quote button

That's pretty much how I get from 1 planet to another

 

[craigh]

Orbiter is something...special.

I don't do much gaming or simulation, most don't keep my attention for more than a couple months. Orbiter is different. I've been periodically mucking around Orbiter since Release Version 021202 or the one before. In Orbiter I learn something, I'm challenged, I thwarted more often than not, and keep coming back for more.

I've not done that with any other sim or game.

Thanks Martin, Thanks to everybody that's been developing add-ons and expanding this wonderful sim that's sometimes a game for all these years.

Craig H

 

[simonpro]

Most rocket scientists have more sense than to ride on rockets. They built the things so they know only too well how likely they are to fail spectacularly. That's why the grew up to be rocket scientists instead of astronauts

Most rocket scientists grew up wanting to be astronauts, but their dream was shattered because they're not fit enough / blind as a bat / have 7 legs / have no charisma / etc. It's very rare to find a rocket scientist who grew up wanting to be in charge of designing, say, vernier rocket nozzles

 

[Urwumpe]

Most rocket scientists grew up wanting to be astronauts, but their dream was shattered because they're not fit enough / blind as a bat / have 7 legs / have no charisma / etc. It's very rare to find a rocket scientist who grew up wanting to be in charge of designing, say, vernier rocket nozzles

Hey, who was the guy who designed the best vernier nozzles of the world? :lol:

 

[Ursus]

To answer the original question:

42

Sure... Orbiter has an objective; it's to throw yourself at the ground and miss.