Fly to the moon, anybody tried it?

[Paul Anderson]

Looks too new to have reviews, but the video looks interesting.

http://www.fspilotshop.com/rdj-simulations-fly-the-moon-for-fsx-p-5833.html

[CodyValkyrie]

Was ist das?

Looks like scripted events through the mission system. Still interesting looking.

[edakridge]

Bought it and was pretty disappointed. There is no mission for a complete flight. I.E. Launch to splashdown

[Dangerous Beans]

Theres no way to do it in FSX as there's an altitude limit, I cant remember what it is atm but its well short of space.

If you want to go to the moon and back (or Mun :) ) get Kerbal Space Program, real rocket science in a slightly cutesy wrapper. http://store.steampowered.com/app/220200/

[Bjoern]

This seems to be a nice demonstration of what is possible within the FSX mission framework, but I much prefer a framework that is dedicated to the subject from the ground up (Orbiter, Kerbal Space Program) for my meager attempts at a successful lunar mission.

[delta_lima]

Theres no way to do it in FSX as there's an altitude limit, I cant remember what it is atm but its well short of space.

If you want to go to the moon and back (or Mun :) ) get Kerbal Space Program, real rocket science in a slightly cutesy wrapper. http://store.steampowered.com/app/220200/

You must be thinking of FS9. FS9 has two chief limitations insofar as "space" travel was concerned

1) a cylindrical globe (flat north/south, but curved east/west) versus FSX's true spherical globe, and
2) an altitude limit of FL999. In FSX its far higher - well above the Karman line of 62 miles/100km - a figure of 100,000,000' rings a bell, but have never been curious enough to try.

Nevertheless, FSX is still hampered in simulating hypersonic travel with a limit of approx. 2,600 kts or Mach 4. That not only limits you in accurately simulating some of the high speed X-15 missions (Mach 6.7), but certainly limits anything involving even low earth orbit (LEO) - typically speeds of 7-8 km/s. Speeds in space are not measured in Mach numbers, but for perspective, that would be an atmospheric equivalent of over Mach 20. So FSX barely can do a 1/4 of that speed.

So .... if FSX is no where near being able to simulate LEO, there's no hope to have a craft reach the much higher speeds yet for translunar injection (TLI) - needed to escape earth's gravitational pull in order to travel to the moon.

So ... there's no way something like Apollo could be simulated in FSX. Frankly, it surprises me that a payware product could be marketed with any kind of seriousness - but, alas, predation on the unwary is not uncommon in this hobby.

As a big NASA fan, I've been simulating high-speed flight on all the sim platforms since FS98, and most of the commercial space sim products out there. At this point, my recommendation would be thus:

1) FSX is good for some of the X-15 flights. Most were either high-speed or high altitude, and on some of the altitude flights, speeds were below Mach 5 - so that would be realistic in the sim.

2) Kerbal is infantile. Great for kids, maybe as a teaching aid in school, but if you're a hard-core simmer, or at least interested in the "flavor" of 60s aeronautics exploration, stay away, and save your money.

3) Orbiter (http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/) - this right here. In my view, it's the most realistic space sim available, and without question, the broadest in terms of reach (manned, unmanned, freaky sci-fi weirdness - something for everyone). Open (not as in source, but extremely "moddable") and FREE - it's one of the most underrated gems in the any sim community. It will rock your world. And for Apollo fans, you have either NASSP (hard) or AMSO (almost hard) projects to simulate realistically, everything from launch to maneuvering to lunar landing to exploring to splashdown....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v314/Darius359au/appolo11orb.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Darius359au/media/appolo11orb.jpg.html)

29402

Sorry that I can't affirm your purchase - I'd cut my losses, bin it, and use the platform best suited for it. Dr. Schweiger, for the decade and a half he has given to create something in some sense bigger than FSX, deserves to be mentioned here.

cheers,

dl

[Wayland]

Delta Lima, you are absolutely correct, Orbiter is the best space flight simulator anywhere, and it's totally free. There's a large community of enthusiasts that generate addons in great quantity, also free. The folks at Orbiter Forum are almost as nice as the SOH folks and just as knowledgeable. Some are even rocket scientists.

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/

If you are at all interested in Space Flight, you owe it to yourself to check it out.

Steve

[CodyValkyrie]

I guess nobody remembers Space Shuttle Mission?

http://www.space-shuttle-mission.com/

[delta_lima]

I guess nobody remembers Space Shuttle Mission?

http://www.space-shuttle-mission.com/


For $50 you get one celestial body and one craft. Graphics that are no better than Orbiter's default textures, nevermind the HD addon ones available. A fair study sim, to be sure, but SSM brings nothing materially better than you cannot do in Orbiter, and limits you to that particular craft.

Paying for that when I have all that and infinitely more is a proposition I can't quite understand - though I'm sure it makes sense to some people, I guess ...

I'd say try Orbiter first, then try payware. The size of the forum Steve linked to speaks volumes both the size of the Orbiter dev community, and the opportunities possible in that sim. YMMV ...

dl

[CodyValkyrie]

Fair, although I think comparing them is an apples/oranges debate. Orbiter is quite a good platform, no doubt. SSM is a study sim dedicated to the Shuttle, as you mentioned, and likely the best Shuttle simulation outside of NASA. Shame that the co-founder Alex passed, as he was a good friend, and had a good vision for the software. He actually was one of the very first people to hire me commercially, and I recruited much of the voice talent for the project (for better or worse). I have it on good word from the developers that the next version is well underway, and is being developed fully in 3D. Nevertheless, it shouldn't be ignored simply because it doesn't offer the breadth and scope of Orbiter, as it has an entirely different goal.

That reminds me... An old friend of mine used to run an Orbiter forum, and at one point was the only website doing so. I wonder if this is his show, if he moved on, or what happened. The guy that ran the forum used to make films under the name Tex Films.

[Bjoern]

FlightGear has a WIP Shuttle with some simulated systems, by the way.

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Space_Shuttle





2) Kerbal is infantile. Great for kids, maybe as a teaching aid in school, but if you're a hard-core simmer, or at least interested in the "flavor" of 60s aeronautics exploration, stay away, and save your money.


Just because KSP may look like a learning tool for kids doesn't mean that it's useless for a space-race style gameplay.
It easily gives Orbiter a run for its money with the right mods installed. Life support, realistic radio wave propagation, realistic reentry physics, random failures, fuel tank pressurization...you name the feature you need in a space flight simulator and there'll be a mod to add it to KSP. Even stuff like Saturns, Thors, Falcons and R7s are available. The only thing that will never change is that your Apollo or ISS crew is composed of pickles with a face, arms, legs and a deathwish.

Also, I have yet to see Orbiter be able to do this:
http://i.imgur.com/PZcnELA.png
Yes, it worked and it was bloody hard to control if you were not careful.

The design and management feature of KSP puts another layer of complexity on top of the space exploration core module.
Instead of simply flying on Atlantis to the ISS as in Orbiter, I have to design a space station first in KSP, shoot each part into orbit, assemble the modules to produce a space station, design a shuttle that will work like the real one, test fly it and then get it up there to deliver supplies and crews. This is borderline hard work, even if you're only playing in "infinite funds" sandbox mode.

I have unpleasant memories of expensive landers tipping over because my horizontal velocity was a wee bit too high and losing experienced Kerbals to parachute failure because the pod ran out of electricity during reentry. And pleasant memories of my Lunokhods roaming the moon's surface and sampling rocks and of sucessful EVA repairs to otherwise dead Agenas.
Orbiter just can't evoke emotion on that level.

[CodyValkyrie]

I'd have to agree Bjoern. I have KSP and have enjoyed it immensely. Aerobraking the last components of my fledgling Duna space station was a very daunting, and memorable moment for me.

[delta_lima]

Hey Cody,

Yeah, that name Tex rings a bell too, in the context of some cool movies many years ago. The mid- to late- 2000s saw a real flurry of dev/addon work with such things as the X-20, X-15 delta, and some of those interesting projects. Other than a recent Gemini addon, it seems much of that Orbiter development has slowed/stopped.

Bjoern alluded to MOL/Blue Gemini a few days ago - that kind of thing, it seemed was on the verge - but I wonder if guys like Brad Hodges and his ilk pulling out of the sim community has given Orbiter a different "vibe" - there appears to be more of a sci-fi bent to a lot of the addons ... maybe a different/younger crowd - don't know. All good, I guess, as these various platforms evolve.

OK - maybe shouldn't have said KBS is infantile - a bit harsh, I guess. Maybe my suspension of disbelief threshold is a bit higher than it could be ... they're all games for recreation, after all, no?

And while we're way off topic, who can forget this? Or am I unduly aging myself ....

29404

I think I jumped out of my chair from the surprise of the jarringly violent sound the Macintosh made when I crashed ... which happened often ... surprised I didn't wear the space bar out .... :very drunk:

dl

[CodyValkyrie]

... they're all games for recreation, after all, no?
Well said. At the end of the day, we gravitate (Einstein would be proud of that pun) to what we enjoy. I have to admit, I turned a certain nuclear physicist at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro onto some of these various programs to utilize as teaching aids. Even got them a copy of the Universe Sandbox 2 for it's wonderful visualizations.



I think I jumped out of my chair from the surprise of the jarringly violent sound the Macintosh made when I crashed ... which happened often ... surprised I didn't wear the space bar out .... :very drunk:

Hah! Yes, I recall playing the hell out of that game. During the late 80s and early 90s we were allocated mandatory time with the school computers. I used to play this, as well as the Scarab of Ra. Sometimes a crowd would gather, as I think I was one of the only kids who could successfully land. ;)

[limjack]

Well now, thanks for adding yet another addicting sim to my list. It may be too much to learn but doesn't mean I'm not going to try haha. Orbiter very cool once you get into space and get around to the different planets. Still much to learn on this one but worth it if you want to do some planet hopping. I'm still on step one trying to break through the atmosphere and intercept a space station. My hats off to those who have played in this environment.

Jim




You must be thinking of FS9. FS9 has two chief limitations insofar as "space" travel was concerned

1) a cylindrical globe (flat north/south, but curved east/west) versus FSX's true spherical globe, and
2) an altitude limit of FL999. In FSX its far higher - well above the Karman line of 62 miles/100km - a figure of 100,000,000' rings a bell, but have never been curious enough to try.

Nevertheless, FSX is still hampered in simulating hypersonic travel with a limit of approx. 2,600 kts or Mach 4. That not only limits you in accurately simulating some of the high speed X-15 missions (Mach 6.7), but certainly limits anything involving even low earth orbit (LEO) - typically speeds of 7-8 km/s. Speeds in space are not measured in Mach numbers, but for perspective, that would be an atmospheric equivalent of over Mach 20. So FSX barely can do a 1/4 of that speed.

So .... if FSX is no where near being able to simulate LEO, there's no hope to have a craft reach the much higher speeds yet for translunar injection (TLI) - needed to escape earth's gravitational pull in order to travel to the moon.

So ... there's no way something like Apollo could be simulated in FSX. Frankly, it surprises me that a payware product could be marketed with any kind of seriousness - but, alas, predation on the unwary is not uncommon in this hobby.

As a big NASA fan, I've been simulating high-speed flight on all the sim platforms since FS98, and most of the commercial space sim products out there. At this point, my recommendation would be thus:

1) FSX is good for some of the X-15 flights. Most were either high-speed or high altitude, and on some of the altitude flights, speeds were below Mach 5 - so that would be realistic in the sim.

2) Kerbal is infantile. Great for kids, maybe as a teaching aid in school, but if you're a hard-core simmer, or at least interested in the "flavor" of 60s aeronautics exploration, stay away, and save your money.

3) Orbiter (http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/) - this right here. In my view, it's the most realistic space sim available, and without question, the broadest in terms of reach (manned, unmanned, freaky sci-fi weirdness - something for everyone). Open (not as in source, but extremely "moddable") and FREE - it's one of the most underrated gems in the any sim community. It will rock your world. And for Apollo fans, you have either NASSP (hard) or AMSO (almost hard) projects to simulate realistically, everything from launch to maneuvering to lunar landing to exploring to splashdown....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v314/Darius359au/appolo11orb.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Darius359au/media/appolo11orb.jpg.html)

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=29402&stc=1

Sorry that I can't affirm your purchase - I'd cut my losses, bin it, and use the platform best suited for it. Dr. Schweiger, for the decade and a half he has given to create something in some sense bigger than FSX, deserves to be mentioned here.

cheers,

dl

[Corpse_Grinder]

If you want to learn more about Orbiter, IMHO this guy has the absolute best tutorial videos on the web.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1bepNOil6LmbiQIYk6APaQ

His "Absolute Beginners Guide to Orbiter" is second to none.

I have had an active copy of Orbiter on every sim machine I've owned. The learning curve is quite steep, but as was stated before, there are so many mods you can make it as easy or difficult as you wish. I absolutely LOVE Orbiter.

The price is right too. :biggrin-new:

[limjack]

I will most certainly watch his videos to gain knowledge.
thanks Corpse_Grinder (with this name I bet your a fan of Halloween)

Jim


If you want to learn more about Orbiter, IMHO this guy has the absolute best tutorial videos on the web.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1bepNOil6LmbiQIYk6APaQ

His "Absolute Beginners Guide to Orbiter" is second to none.

I have had an active copy of Orbiter on every sim machine I've owned. The learning curve is quite steep, but as was stated before, there are so many mods you can make it as easy or difficult as you wish. I absolutely LOVE Orbiter.

The price is right too. :biggrin-new: