Hi all,

I have already asked this in another thread, but unfortunately my question was not saw.

So here it goes again:
In FSX, with the map or by slew, we can now go to orbital altitudes, and the map display will allow entering very big values for altitude. But what about speed ?

- Are you able to enter an altitude of 120 kms and a speed of 8 kms per second ?

- If you can set that, does your aircraft stays in orbit ?

Thanks for the infos

I can't gain any control until I fall under 200,000 feet.

I tried to, but the max speed I could set in the map was 1200 kais

I wouldn't expect to be abled to go into space and orbit, but I do expect you to be abled to fly a NASP, which is kinda a orbit but skimming the atmosphere.

Orbiter is great, I know it already. Nevertheless, the planet is good looking from 150 kms high ONLY.
And again, I do not want to do anything complex in space, I just want to know if a plane can orbit or not.

PS:For info, space physics are very simple to model, MUCH simpler than physics in the atmosphere.

Space physics are MUCH MORE complicated than atmospheric physics.

Physics is the same whether you are in the atmosphere or space. It's the aerodynamics that you have to deal with in atmosphere. I do have to admit that it would be really cool to combine a space shuttle addon and a scenery like Aerosoft's Cape Canaveral scenery in FSX. Start it about 40 miles up somewhere over the Gulf of Mexico and make the approach and landing.

EDIT: You just better hope that ATC doesn't tell you to "go around".


Quote:

  Quote:


The 2006 Orbiter version has non-spherical gravity and gravity gradient torque.

Yep, just checked this. I even had Orbiter 2006 on my drive, but completely forgot about that feature.
Anyway, I wonder if it would really be that usefull in FSX, where only the earth is modelled.
Of course, the more functionnalities, the better, but anyway it would already be very glad to have a basic flight environment.

MS has no excuse for not including it. They have already done it (quite well, I must add) in the past. Remember MS Space Simulator ? I have spent days on that sim. Never understood why they didn't use it as a base for the FS series, woud have been very nice I think. There was:
- full earth planet
- full moon
- full solar system in fact...
- fairly consistent galaxy (wth generic planets and stars models, but correct positions)
- space stations
- ship-station, ship-ship and station-station docking
etc...
Would be nice if they could include that in FS series... that's not military, so why not ?

Quote:


Not so long, and the graphics were really not that bad, really not
I'm not too sure, but it seems to me that Space Sim and FS5 were on the same period... am I right ?

PS: They did it, they did it, that's all. Time is not an excuse 

Actually I think MS Space Sim's problem was that it was too good. It's the same reason Orbiter only appeals to a small number of people. There's a steep learning curve and that intimidates a large part of the standard market. Look at some of the space sim "games". It's Star Wars physics with zooming and blasting because that's what the majority wants.

That's also the reason MSFS keeps things pretty simple out of the box. If you want lots of systems etc. then you get a payware AC. Only a handfull of people purchase airliners with all systems modeled and post on flight sim forums about realistic approach procedures and the like.

We at SimV are the few the proud the severely disturbed. 

It's even more pronounced with a sim like Orbiter. It took me a couple days to learn enough to make it into a decent orbit. I doubt the average "gamer" would sit still that long. If they couldn't do it in ten minutes studying the manual then they'd give it up.



Quote:



Good point. Actually the physics of both atmosphere and space flight are the same. Newton worked it out hundreds of years ago. It's the atmosphere that makes the difference. Orbiter models it like X-Plane does by a core engine using Newtonian physics and then calculating the effects that aerodynamics and atmosphere has on the ship structure. X-Plane just puts more emphasis on the atmospheric flight than Orbiter. Since Orbiter is mostly a space sim it figures you will only spend a few minutes in atmosphere so no need for a lot of aerodynamics modeling. What you get is a decent atmospheric model and super accurate space flight model.

MSFS is different however. It uses a table to calculate aerodynamics. If the airplane is going X speed with Y drag and Z lift then the effects will be A. It's a little less accurate because you still get A even if X really =X.0001  but it's a lot easier on the processor. That's how you get so much more eye candy in MSFS. It doesn't matter anyway since the differences are so close you won't notice it unless you are comparing it to real life and counting the decimal places.

The drawback is that MSFS doesn't model space flight and can't until it gets a Newtonian model on top of it's flight model or dumps the table system completely. That's why I don't think you'll see a whole lot of space flight modeled in FSX.

Now what I think Daube was thinking about and what I'd love to see is a sim with the scenery and atmospheric flight of FSX and the space flight of Orbiter. That would be a helluva sim. 

Unfortunately with that I think MS would spend a lot of time programming a sim that most people would be completely blown away by the complexity and thus sales wouldn't be worth the cost. Also consider the rig you would need to run that baby and the cost would be astronomical (pun intended ). You think $60 is steep for a sim. One can dream however.

Quote:

AND that sucks !   But on the other hand, it's difficult to imagine a space combat game without star wars gameplay...
Let's say, in fact I'm not really unhappy with the starwars physics, it's just that those crafts are borring to pilot. I would really like to see a space game with spacecrafts as detailled as the planes of FS, with a VC full of systems you could interact with, not just gears, guns and shield


Quote:

I'm not happy with that. I would really have prefered having 5 planes only, but fully modelled, than 20 planes that have only the lights and the gear switch working, like we had in FS9....

Quote:



Quote:

The average gamer is not willing to orbit. In fact, the average gamer would never buy (well, let's forget it's feeware) a sim in which you have strictly nothing to do.
(which I'm am perfectly happy with: no timer, no checkpoints, no AI sucker to shoot you while you're playing with your intruments, etc...

Quote:

Absolutely

Quote:

Absolutely

Quote:

I personnaly would ALREADY be VERY HAPPY with just the physics of MS space sim But if you insist for Orbiter physics...mmhhh OK  

Quote:

I agree for the reaction of people... although I'm not completely sure that the kind of guys (and girls ) using atually the sim for several years, with payware stuff in it etc... would be THAT unhappy to get very realistic stuff in space as well

For the rig, I don't agree. There is more visual and physical details to handle when you are in the atmospere than when you are in space. As a consequence, a rig that would be able to run FSX in the atmosphere could run it perfectly in space as well. Look at orbiter, it's realy not that ressource demanding

Yeah well, what I saw is the amazing increase of texture sizes, for earth. This is actually the most ressource-demaind stuff of the sim. If you would keep with low resolutions textures as it was before, you would still be able to run it on a very low-range computer.

But I agree when you say that the more complex the calculations are, the faster CPU you need.

I don't think space physics would be too hard.  Besides.  MS already got the lack of air up there.

I slewed a Baron 58 up to the highest point possible.  I turned off slew and sure enough, my engines cut off, and I couldn't do a thing.  My instruments also went wacky.  I moved my joystick around, nothing.  started my engines, which just stopped again.  Eventually I fell to a point where the atmosphere was just think enough to get my engines going.  But it didn't end there.  I kept accelerating, untill the overspeed sign at the bottom right appeared.  I kept going, and was wondering when My plane would rip apart from overstress.  Then finally after 2 mins on overspeed, my aircraft overstressed.

After that, I though:
That was the coolest thing ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All MS need to do now is add rocket engines and thrusters.  Presto.  space sim (with detailed spacecraft )

Quote:



Piston engines will quit at high altitude in FS 2004 and you will loose control until you get down to thicker air. Did you try it in a jet?

Also look at the airspeed indicator. If it's truely airless you won't read any airspeed (make sure it's set to show indicated airspeed).

Ground speed is another way to tell. Without air your ground speed won't change. . If you are high enough to be out of the atmosphere, check your ground speed and if you are slowing down then you have some air dragging your speed down.


Quote:


I haven't heard that before. Looks like I'm gonna have to find someone to make me a Delta Glider for FSX.
 

Quote:


Agree. And also, just think how boring space combat would be with realistic physics. Search trillions of cubic kilometers of space for an enemy. Find them and plot an intercepting orbit. Fire missiles and wait for 6 weeks to see if you got a hit. Or alternatively patrol between Earth and Saturn for ten years and miss your enemy entirely. Hey space is big.

Quote:


Same here but we aren't the majority of Microsoft's target customers. Believe it or not there are many many people who purchase MSFS and never add or change a thing and are happy with it as it is out of the box.

As for myself. I'm waiting for holodeck technology like they have on Star Trek NG. Then MS can change it's motto from, "As real as it gets" to, "So real you can't tell the difference".