Talk:Orbiter (simulator)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Renamed

This page has been redirected to Orbiter (sim) as it directly implies that Orbiter is a game - which in fact is not true (as stated by the author) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0.39 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 August 2004 (UTC)

Revert to fix c&p move

I'm going to revert this temporarily to fix the c&p move. --Aqua 05:21, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Move complete. --Aqua 19:16, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think these are the ones responsible. They've got a contest on to see who can spam the most. http://www.freeibforums.com/forums/index.php?mforum=Wraithklan&showtopic=143

-Berle (not registered)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.191.109 (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe this page should stay locked until requested to be unlocked by Martin. The vandles that struck are serial web site defacers, and they will come back in the future to make more attempts.

-User:BigJimW

I beg to differ. This would mean that probably no one would work on it anymore. Would we be satisfied with it? I do not think so. In my opinion it should be locked for some time. Then we should restart developing it again.

0.39 19:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There has been abuse of the talk page today. The offending person has been blocked.

-MatW, 23rd September 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.252.156 (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

If this sort of vandalism continues, we may want to consider notifying Comcast that one of their subscribers was engaging in behavior contrary to his/her terms of use. -Loren 23:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

External links

Should the External Links be split into a large collection of links to addon sites + a small collection of other links (official web site, forum, irc, orbiterwiki)? Does anyone like the idea? --Romanski 10:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I like the idea of subheadings; the external links section is too big right now. -- Ruaraidh-dobson 11:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sound

Please let people know this beautiful sim needs the seprate sound plugin to have any audio at all. It is kind of a hidden fact on the wiki and the main orbiter page.

Done. :) The Singing Badger 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to remark... its also existing in the OrbiterWiki FAQ since a long time.[1] --62.176.239.161 12:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to move to Orbiter (sim)

Orbier has been moved to Orbiter (Computer Game). I don't recall any discussion regarding this, I would have though it to be a simulation rather than a game. Espcially considering the quote at the top of the page

This page has been redirected to Orbiter (sim) as it directly implies that Orbiter is a game -
which in fact is not true (as stated by the author)

What do other people think> --Rehnn83 13:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It definitely feels more like a sim than a game to me. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 04:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a game, it's an open-ended simulator. The Singing Badger 11:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the comments on here I've decided to move the article back to Orbiter (sim) --Rehnn83 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Notes

This article is maintained by the Orbiter community besides millions of users who are using Wikipedia. --Bigtop 00:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, based on a whole one comment. Why not call it a 'computer program' or something instead? As there are a strong group for both sim and game. I'd go with the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.251.143 (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

New patch released

A new patch has been released - try to improve the page! Bigtop 23:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OrbiterWiki & linkspam

I removed OrbiterWiki as per WP:EL's links to avoid: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors as, whilst I'm a great believer in it, it doesn't have a substantial number of editors.

It's been re-inserted, so someone else obviously like it too, but if it does get removed again, this is why.

Since there are no other entries in the external links section bar the homepage, I think it's probably reasonable.

There are too many links in the addons section, though, so I'm going to prune those to sites that offer a notable and original set of downloads.

Cheers. --BadWolf42 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the number of external links should be cutdown. Of the Links currently present - these are my thoughts.

External Links

Orbiter official website

OrbiterWiki

The Official website IMHO is a must, as for the orbiter wiki - I'm undecided - there are pros and cons. I think it's best left to a community decision.

Addon collections

Orbit Hangar Mods - an Orbiter addon repository

Orbiter Sound Addon

Avsim - large Orbiter addon libraries

Moonport Orbiter site

Many open source addons from the CCCP Team

Meadville Space Center

Astronomy Portal to the Heavens, Deep Sky and Universe

Orbiter Community Links

Project Apollo for Orbiter

Russian page and forum about Orbiter

Virtual United States Space Program (VUSSP) - A virtual space agency that uses Orbiter

Package Orbiter + full addons

Fly Away - Orbiter and simulation news

Go Play In Space, introductory tutorial manual for Orbiter

Virtual Spaceflight - Links, Tutorials, Add-ons & Reviews

CVE-lite progammer's API extension.

There is a case for having no download sites at all. (As they contribute nothing to the article itself). However some could be justified. IMHO - general download sites e.g. Avsim, Orbit Hangar etc... add nothing and they can easily be found from the main Orbiter site or Orbiter Comunity Links. Specific download, such as Project Apollo have merit. One idea which has occured to me is to include them as references rather than external links.(in the section for Orbiter Addons) (They would need to be referenced properly rather than as they are now. Rehnn83, (talk) -- 19:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see the point about not linking to external wiki sites, but the Orbiter wiki is possibly the best place to get an idea of what addons are available for Orbiter short of searching through all the different download sites, forums and sourceforge pages. So I'd say it's probably worth including: it has been around for some time and does seem to be policed against spammers and vandals. Mark Grant 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Afraid I couldn't disagree more with Rehnn's summary. Orbithangar and AVSim are probably the most useful links since they offer a mulititude of downloads from a dedicated centralised source.

Orbiter Links Compendium, or similar, need not apply.

--BadWolf42 04:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say, remove all external links to add-on repositories, especially general like AvSim, and erase all community specific links (virtual space agencies). To be fair, the OrbiterWiki link would also need to be removed according to the rules, though as we have reached stability by brute force and some sort of official relevance to the topic of the article, but lack active editors, which also threatens our official status for Orbiter. Maybe OrbiterWiki can return as external link later, when we reached more activity again. The question for each link should be "What relevance has this link to Orbiter. Is each two-person space agency important to know?"

I have no problem with these agency links in OrbiterWiki, the same applies to add-on links (add-ons can have their own articles in OrbiterWiki, the same also applies to add-on repositories). Virtual Space agencies could even have their own articles in OrbiterWiki, so its sure a better place for them. But for this article, it would only be nice to mention that they exist and that there are many of them. Also that there is a VERY active community behind Orbiter.

Urwumpe— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.169.36.49 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Schweiger Section Move

I moved the page of Dr. Schweiger and merged it with the orbiter section. It combines the creator and his creation, which is really all he is known for. There really isn't anything else on him, so I don't know why people were so insistant on giving him his own page with 2 sentences; its out of place and awkward. After putting it in this section, I really think it fits better and gives it more quality as an encyclopedia.

--User:Deltaforce5000 02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

The ones in the article are old and therefor don't show the current state. Especially the first few. At least they use outdated textures. There should be new ones with the best current graphics. Also, MIR has bad textures anyway, so ISS should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.242.149 (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Full game title

I noticed that lots of websites list the game's title as "Orbiter Space Flight Simulator" (link). Is this the game's full title? SharkD (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The site calls the program "Orbiter", with "Space Flight Simulator" being more of a description of what it is. Think outside the box 13:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Orbiter-ariane5.jpg

Image:Orbiter-ariane5.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:X29overEdwards in Orbiter.jpg

Image:X29overEdwards in Orbiter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shuttle lift-off in Orbiter.jpg

Image:Shuttle lift-off in Orbiter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:X29overEdwards in Orbiter.jpg

Image:X29overEdwards in Orbiter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shuttle lift-off in Orbiter.jpg

Image:Shuttle lift-off in Orbiter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Serenity add on

In the Firefly "Jumbo" Transport 2008 Edition add on, how do I get Serenity's main propulsion ("firefly drive") to work? I can only get the jets going, far too slow for interplanetary travel, useless you increase the time skip Think outside the box 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mercury1-large.jpg

Image:Mercury1-large.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Its done. Think outside the box 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Delta Glider MKIV

I thought that the Delta Glider mark iv was an add-on, becuase i downloaded it, adn it allowed me to go ummu eva or something, and evry control is usable, it comes that yellow black colour, nbut can be changed in the scenaroi editor, but i thought that just a standard DG came with it. --Jameogle (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, The Delta Glider IV is the downloadable one by Dan Steph's website, but Orbiter comes with a stock Delta Glider that is the basic one. I'm not quite sure but it's possible that the "stock" glider might be the 4th version, or Mk.4 but I'm not sure. If not, we should remove the "Mk.4" part to avoid confusion. I'm looking around, but so far haven't seen anything referring to the stock one as the Mk.4 Cody-7 (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the STOCK DG, by Dr. Schwieger, is the MK 4. The DeltaGliderIV is an addon created by Dan Steph. --Alx xlA (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Alx xlA. Cody-7 (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Add-on examples

Again, please keep the number of examples low and limited to those who have relevance to the world outside the Orbiter community. The seventh Delta-glider modification is maybe relevant inside the Orbiter community, but it will not interest anybody outside the community. Instead of irrelevant postings of your favorite add-ons, better write some text about the simulator in the same time. A short summary of the features and weaknesses of Orbiter would for example be a good addition, does anybody already have some idea how to start such a section?

The article is still not rated FA*, I will not be pleased with your performance until we have reached this level of appreciation.Urwumpe (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I think many agree that the addons really make Orbiter shine. I believe how the article stands now with a few real-world addons listed with their respective homepage / download link cited in references is fine. However I may add a photo of an Apollo addon in the Addons section as it seems any previous ones people upload to this page keep getting deleted because they cannot provide correct copyright information.

Cody-7 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to Orbiter (simulator)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Since there has been confusion over the type of software this is, I propose moving it to Orbiter: Space Flight Simulator (as the site appears to state), which would remove the need for classifying it in the page name. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support move, oppose proposed title. I don't like the current title, but equally, I don't like the non-standard disambiguation that you propose. I would suggest a compromise, such as Orbiter (software), or similar. Failing that, can we at least use a proper word in the title, such as "simulator" instead of "sim". --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  The reason I suggested that title is because that is what the official site says. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  Strangely enough, the site also makes a habit of referring to the package as "ORBITER" (see copyright notice on website, running footer and copyright statement in user manual PDF, etc.) or just "Orbiter", with no clear pattern of usage whatsoever. However, I don't see clear usage of "Orbiter: Space Flight Simulator" apart from those words being placed alongside one another in the graphic heading on the website (sans colon). I think keying off that graphic may be a bit much. Why not just move to Orbiter (software) or somesuch? I agree that "(sim)" seems inappropriate. D. Brodale (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment How about Orbiter (simulator)? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support move, oppose proposed title. I agree, the (sim) is badly chosen. I think, it can either be "Orbiter(simulator)" or "Orbiter(software)". The product name in the ESA presentations is "Orbiter", not "Orbiter:Space Flight Simulator".--Urwumpe (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support move, support the title "Orbiter (simulator)" As I've come to understand it, the software is just called by most of the community as "Orbiter", and sometimes "Orbiter 2006" "Orbiter 2005", etc when referring to a specific version of the game. But as far as the Wiki article is concerned, I believe it should be called Orbiter (simulator). It is more of a simulator than a game (Although it can me considered both); and (sim) is too informal. Cody-7 (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Reopened

It seems that this requested move hadn't been listed over at WP:RM, so it just fell into nothingness. I've listed it over there so we can hopefully get this taken care of; it seems to me that there is consensus for a move. However, as there wasn't ever a listing, I'm not going to propose a specific title. Thus I'm using moveoptions above. Orbiter: Space Flight Simulator and Orbiter (simulator) were the two main suggestions here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support move to Orbiter (simulator) only per my previous post. I would also like to voice my disapproval that the previous discussion was closed against consensus simply because it hadn't been listed properly. Users should never use the exact wording of a policy to justify undermining its principles. Whilst I am sure that the admin involved acted in good faith, I think that the action taken was the wrong one. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Title in italics

To repeat it for the people here, who edit without reading the article and/or the wikipedia rules, Orbiter is not a game (and can thus be counted as piece of art) and application software titles are not set in italics. Just look for Microsoft Office, OpenOffice or Celestia. And the definition of a game (Orbiter has no goal, no opponents and is not done especially for entertainment). I think this kind of inconsistent application of a rule gets extremely stupid. Especially when a Wikipedia rule is posted as reason, which does not justify it at all. Do you think it makes other people shut up, when you just add WP:NONSENSE to make it look more official? --Urwumpe (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's categorized as a game, supported by the Video games wikiproject, uses a video game infobox (and not an application infobox). X-Plane and (less strictly) Microsoft Flight Simulator both meet the criteria you state above for not being a game, yet they're both called games and have their titles italicized. You're entitled to your opinion as to how things should be, and it appears this is a perennial argument that comes up with flight simulators (see here and here), but the prevailing consensus appears to be that desktop flight simulators are games; see the definitions of Space flight simulator game versus Space flight simulator. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing images and priority scale

First, where did all the images go? There was one of Dr. Martin Schweiger, and at least two of Orbiter addons. Were they removed automatically because of missing copyright tags? PLEASE make sure, people, when you upload images to add the correct liscence tags and a blurb about why it qualifies as fair use if you want them to stay. The copyright bots (or brain dead copywright-worshipping users for that matter) will remove the images or resize them to thumbnail-size if not. I already had to reproduce and re-upload the image at the top showing the shuttle lift-off because no one added proper copyright info to it and I couldn't find a backup copy on the 'net anywhere.

Second, why is this article qualified as a "low" on the priority scale? It's one of the few recently made (and continually being updated) space-flight simulators for the PC. I can think of a lot of games that should on the low scale instead of this one. Or does that reflect the general feeling on spaceflight that it is a low priority? (Ok, jumping to conclusions, but still).

Cody-7 (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there are established guidelines for images in video game articles, which specify that screenshots should be less than 0.1megapixels (see WP:VG/GL#Screenshots and cover art). Low resolution is not an option with nonfree content. It might also be of interest to you that for screenshots of films, the general rule is that only one of the two dimensions of the image may be longer than 300px (see MOS:FILM#Instructions).

As to how article importance works, see here; my understanding is that it has to do with how the subject is important with regards to other articles. For example, Doom (video game) is rated top-importance because of its far-reaching influence and significant history and popularity in the video games world. However, I'm not clear on what makes an article mid-importance instead of low-importance. If you feel this game should have a different importance level, you should list it at the video games wikiproject assessment page to be reassessed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Complaints about missing references

Can the person responsible for the complaint please also have the honesty to say which claims inside the description of the simulator are not verified good enough and require more sources (additionally to the Orbiter Manual which can be read online)? I can understand that such a large section without proper bibliography is a bit disturbing, but sometimes hard to avoid when talking about the features of a software. I also don't want now to link to the Orbiter Manual every other sentence for playing safe.

The claims about the accuracy of Orbiter can be solved by adding a reference to one of the technical notes, which are part of the Orbiter installation. I can do this later from home, where I can read the official title of the technical notes, or somebody else can be faster. --Urwumpe (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick glance, but things like commentary on the effectiveness of Orbiter's realism, accuracy of the simulation and similar need to be substantiated with a third-party reference or removed. Technical notes are not valid sources for remarking on a level of accuracy as they're primary sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if done as scientific report? The published numbers in the report "Orbiter Technical Notes: Dynamic state vector propagation", by the author of the software himself, can be reproduced and experimentally verified, if you did attend the basic numerics course in university. So it suits well the rule "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Unless of course, the reasonable, educated person has to be from generation Youtube and propagating a state vector with different numerical integration methods is really specialist knowledge suddenly.

Also, I doubt I can find third-party information about the claimed accuracy, as no university outside the known user group did ever evaluate Orbiters accuracy as really neutral institution. Reports about by how many meters Orbiters simulation differed from historic missions are existing within the community, but can hardly be considered third party or scientifically verifiable. --Urwumpe (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific report" doesn't really have any meaning here- was it published in a third-party peer-reviewed academic journal? That might pass WP:SOURCES. That the numbers can be reproduced or experimentally verified is immaterial- the issue is that we're making a subjective statement about some very objective facts, and it's inappropriate per Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy to take a subjective statement from a primary source such as this. And, to be sure, there remains the question of, if nobody's written about it in a secondary source, is it a significant viewpoint (see WP:UNDUE)? As to your opinion of what is common knowledge... I'll bite my tongue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)