[HN Gopher] Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source ___________________________________________________________________ Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source Author : shakow Score : 289 points Date : 2021-07-28 11:41 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.orbiter-forum.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.orbiter-forum.com) | tito wrote: | Anyone who loves this kind of stuff should check out The Orbital | Index, a curated weekly newsletter of all things space: | https://orbitalindex.com | | Run by two friends of mine who are avid HNers. | jaytaylor wrote: | And they even provide an RSS feed! | | https://orbitalindex.com/feed.xml | [deleted] | ekster wrote: | Great news for Deltaglider pilots everywhere. | dang wrote: | Looks like one past thread: | | _Orbiter Space Flight Simulator 2016 Edition_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12943028 - Nov 2016 (16 | comments) | criddell wrote: | Anybody know what's involved in moving from DX7 to DX11? | Already__Taken wrote: | Anyone around from the Anarchy Online Engine update shed any | light? Looks like it was a gigantic task. | roytries wrote: | It would be a huge undertaking, especially if the DirectX types | leaked into the rest of the application. DirectX 7 is from | 1999, games like Half-Life 1 used it. This is when GPUs were | mostly fixed-function. While nowadays a GPU is almost as | versatile as a CPU. | | The hardest/largest step would probably be to get it into this | century, with the latest version of DirectX 9 (2005, Windows XP | / Xbox 360 era). The step from 9 to 11 is also quite big, but a | lot of APIs have stayed compatible. | Arwill wrote: | A viable solution for DX9 is using DXVK to emulate the old DX | API under Vulkan, then add your own hooks into DXVK and | transition to Vulkan in a more relaxed manner. | | Now DXVK does not support DX7, but a quick search found | dgVoodoo2, which does emulate DX7 under DX11. Maybe that or a | similar library can be used as a stepping stone. | | Regarding porting legacy apps to 64bit, the most problems | i've seen were concerning old libraries (on Windows). That | usually requires replacing old libraries with new a version, | and fixing includes. I've seen only a handful of bugs arising | purely from 32bit vs 64bit differences. | AstralStorm wrote: | Unfortunately the swapchain and rendering is vastly | different from DX9 to DX11, the latter being now more | similar to Vulkan. | | So maybe it could work to port the codebase to DX9 but no | further really. | jsmith45 wrote: | Hm.. I would have thought getting to DirectX9 would be | easier, as directx9 still had some support for the fixed | function pipeline. | | What I'm sure you were getting at is a proper conversion to | DX9 making use of the shader based pipeline. | | That said, looking at the code I don't think porting to | proper shader based DirectX would be terribly difficult for | anybody experienced in setting up directx in a shader based | pipeline. Nothing looks too fancy. | | Of course it could be made more complicated by actually | making use of shaders to improve over the fixed function | design, but that is not required for an initial port. | ricardobeat wrote: | How necessary is porting it, and for how long will old | DirectX versions continue to work? | | Having no knowledge of the code, I imagine if you have a | functioning graphics layer, most of the work would happen on | the underlying physics models and high level drawing/scene | APIs, not directly interfacing with DX. | lights0123 wrote: | There are multiple DX7 to something else translators | (https://fdossena.com/?p=wined3d/index.frag and | https://dxgl.org/): I wonder if they're 64-bit compatible if | that's a higher priority than a modern graphics API. | AstralStorm wrote: | Neither is a translator, they're actually emulators - | implementing the older API using newer calls. That does not | help in porting either. | shakow wrote: | The Orbiter Space Simulator (http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/) has | been one of the major realistic-ish space simulators of the | decade. | | Development has slowed down in the last years due to the | obligations of its sole author, so seeing it be open-sourced with | a free license (MIT) is a great opportunity to rekindle its | development! It seems that the first priorities would be to | upgrade the code to 64-bits and transition to a more recent | version of DirectX. | zardo wrote: | It didn't need to be open source for a DX11 graphics client to | be developed. | | https://www.orbiter-forum.com/threads/d3d11client-download-a... | codetrotter wrote: | The Bitbucket link in that thread doesn't work | larodi wrote: | another open source project is born only after it is basically | dead or is about to die in its closed-source form. | | out of curiosity - which other open source projects do you know, | that have not started as open source? | jylam wrote: | Blender, Firefox and OpenOffice have, from the top of my head. | outworlder wrote: | Better than just dying and taking the source with it. | DarmokJalad1701 wrote: | This is great news! I have been a fan since around 2006 when I | was just a teenager. | ekster wrote: | Same, playing a lot of this game once gave me a sort of dizzy | feeling while looking up at the blue sky, like I was looking | forward/out rather than up. Only happened once, but I will | never forget it. | [deleted] | dr-detroit wrote: | what the... left-pad!?!? | aero-glide2 wrote: | This is great news, hope to contribute, time permitting! | marcodiego wrote: | I wonder how hard would be to port it to linux. Maybe dxvk may | help? | | Also, latest version is from 2016, so it looks like software that | doesn't brings any money is finally open source because there is | no hope to make any in the future. I'm sorry for them but glad | they open sourced it. Would love if outcomes like this happened | more often. | space_fountain wrote: | I don't think there was ever any hint of an attempt to bring in | money. I'm not entirely sure why the author choose to keep it | closed source, maybe worries about others seeing "bad" code or | something, but this is simply a case of someone no longer | having time for their labor of love, not someone failing to | monetize | [deleted] | VLM wrote: | Most of the discussion was decades ago. I've been playing | around with Orbiter since it was new (and back then the | hardware reqs to run were very expensive, not so much today). | (edited: to emphasize, I've seen a lot and read a lot and | played a lot, but am not an authoritative member of the | orbiter community, none of this is private nor it is | official, and its greatly summarized) | | The base game is workable but it really depends on 3rd party | addons to do your planning and calculations and have | somewhere to take off from and something to fly and somewhere | to fly to. | | The 3rd party addons were often FOSS licensed and despite | much noise about the glories of FOSS, never got much public | help, typically. A 100 dev sized project benefits greatly if | a 10 dev company releases it under a FOSS license and 500 | people step forward to help. A 2 dev sized project where | nobody steps up to help the original dev for some decades | doesn't benefit much from FOSS despite in theory "it could | have happened". | | There was a fear that the game being only playable with 3rd | party mods, and FOSS being famous for forking, the overall | project would die if the overworked single individual 3rd | party devs were smacked with having to work against | uncountable forked versions the 3rd party devs may have never | seen or even have hardware to run (like a port to a phone | maybe). The whole project can only move as fast as the | slowest dev if its only usable in toto as a flotilla. Its not | a game with DLC, its more like a API with a huge collection | of compatible software that'll only remain compatible if | nothing changes. | | If you're familiar with minecraft or rimworld or similar | heavily modded games, imagine if you took "everything" out of | those games and put it all into addons such that they were | essentially unplayable without the addons. Like imagine if | vanilla MC didn't have mobs or tools or blocks, it just | rendered steve in an empty 3d world. | | So if FOSS didn't supercharge development, it would be | useless to the overall project because pragmatically nothing | happened despite the relicensing work, and if it did | supercharge development, it would kill the project by wiping | out the 3rd party devs whom are very handwavy the limiting | factor. | | Ironically as "complete" or "finished" software the core | project doesn't or didn't need devs anyway. The "cool stuff" | all happened in mods and addons. Want a new MFD? That's an | addon. Want a new vehicle? That's an addon. Want a new | system, like the complete model of an electrical system for | some Mars thing I remember a decade ago? That's an addon. | Want new planets and solar systems and stations and | satellites? That's an addon. The base system is kind of a a | window manager (yes I know its not "a window manager" per C++ | code, but I mean conceptually it herds the cats of addons so | they don't step on each other and generally cooperate and | render to the screen). The base system needs significant | development as the graphics APIs are two decades out of date, | but for two decades there wasn't much to do that wasn't being | done in mods anyway. | | If everything is an addon its not clear what the base system | could evolve into anyway. You could add multiplayer and | commo, but that's best done in an addon. You could add | mission video recording but that's best done by the video | card and OS. I guess you could tidy up some addon API issues | causing mass incompatibility issues so would it be worth it? | | Much as the author originally feared, a dozen or two posts | into the forum FOSS announcement and there's already talk | about branches and forks and competing strategies for | conversion to 64 bit that'll kill the 3rd party addons and | mods that made the game usable, so the FOSS announcement is | probably more an announcement of the death of the project | than some kind of rebirth. | rbanffy wrote: | It's MIT licensed, so there's nothing stopping someone from | getting it, making major changes, and releasing it as | proprietary software for consoles and make a lot of money in | the process. | | This is why I'm always sad when I see a project opening as MIT | instead of GPL. | bruce511 wrote: | Not to be picky, but the GPL would not stop someone "making | major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software for | consoles and make a lot of money in the process." | | The only difference is that they would be obligated to | release the source code. Given that the list of folk who can | compile for consoles is very limited, this would not be an | existential burden for them. | | Indeed, even if they targeted a common development platform, | like a PC or Mac, they would still be able to offer lots of | value, and easily sell copies if there was a market for that. | The vast majority of players would happily pay $49 for a | compiled version of the game rather than go to the effort of | compiling themselves. | | In other words, the GPL and MIT licenses are orthogonal to | making money - making money selling compiled GPL programs is | not hard - assuming the program has some value to someone. | the_af wrote: | > the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and | releasing it as proprietary software for consoles and make | a lot of money in the process."" | | It absolutely would stop anyone from releasing it as | _proprietary_ software. You cannot have GPL 'ed proprietary | software. You can sell GPL code, you can use it in | proprietary platforms, but by definition the software | itself cannot be _proprietary_. If it 's GPL'ed, other | people can sell it, modify it, distribute it, and use it | for their own purposes. | bruce511 wrote: | >> You cannot have GPL'ed proprietary software. | | I get that, hence me saying "they would be obligated to | release the source code." My point is that has little or | no effect on the actual sales of the program (since the | parent post was primarily about money.) | | There are reasons to prefer GPL over MIT, and other | reasons to prefer MIT over GPL, but money isn't one of | them... | bluecatswim wrote: | >(since the parent post was primarily about money) | | I don't think so, it was about making money through | selling it as proprietary software. | the_af wrote: | I understood the key word was "proprietary" in the | comment you refer to, with the side effect of also | "making lots of money". I might have misunderstood. | moftz wrote: | Plus, you can open source the code but leave the textures, | models, maps, whatever else as proprietary. iD software | already did this with the source code of Doom, you can read | it but unless you want to reskin the whole game, it's | entirely unplayable. | goodpoint wrote: | > the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and | releasing it as proprietary software ... | | > The only difference is that they would be obligated to | release the source code. | | If they release the source code it's not proprietary | software anymore - by definition - and GPL achieved its | goal. | | > the GPL and MIT licenses are orthogonal to making money | | The GPL allows selling modified (FOSS) versions with | extended contents e.g. artwork, music. | | But it also allows the original author to do so without | succumbing to the competition from companies that leverage | their dominant market position. | | With MIT freeloaders win. | baq wrote: | it doesn't matter that much in case of games, because the | code is not very useful without assets. famously multiple | quakes were released as GPL software and it didn't really | cost id software anything in lost sales. art and levels | were NOT released as GPL. | | i'd say MIT license wouldn't impact the sales outcome at | all. | outworlder wrote: | > The only difference is that they would be obligated to | release the source code. | | Upon request, and it just can't be less accessible than the | binaries. You can charge for the source - just not more | than what the binaries cost. | 41209 wrote: | >This is why I'm always sad when I see a project opening as | MIT instead of GPL. | | Counterpoint, many companies won't allow GPL software even if | eventually it'd be open sourced again. | | I personally wouldn't mind a for sale version of this game | updated to run on my phone. Even if it's 15$ or so. Without a | profit motive the number of people who would bother to | continue development is much lower. | | Your also free to fork it , make the ultimate version and GPL | it | RobotCaleb wrote: | Sure, but on the other hand it's MIT so I'm actually willing | to look at the source code. | CydeWeys wrote: | Why wouldn't you be willing to look at GPL source code? | That'd be writing off all of Linux as just the tip of the | iceberg. | blendergeek wrote: | Why wouldn't you be willing to look at GPL code? | | Is it just GPL, or strong copyleft in general? | | Do you intend to release modified versions without | releasing corresponding source code? | | Why should an author want to provide you with the source | code, just so you can deny that privilege to others? | RobotCaleb wrote: | In my opinion (opinion, so I could be wrong), MIT and | friends offer more freedom. I have a strong aversion to | the concept of copyleft and usually try to avoid it for | fear of "tainting" anything I touch after. In principle, | where it makes sense, I rather like the idea of the sort | of freedom claimed by GPL advocates but in practice I | prefer to allow people to do whatever they want. | RobotCaleb wrote: | To answer your questions, no, I don't intend (or tend, | for that matter) to takes modified versions without | corresponding source code. It's not about what I do it's | about what they say I can and can't do. | | I don't know why an author should. I'm not spending any | time agonizing over what they should be doing. I don't | understand why you threw that second half of the sentence | in there as if the two are necessarily linked. | shakow wrote: | > software that doesn't brings any money | | Orbiter never tried to bring in any money. It has always been a | one-physicist pet project (first version published in 2000), | closed-source albeit very open to all kind of mods and | featuring a vibrant community. | [deleted] | fexed wrote: | This is fantastic news! Been using it since 2006, can't wait to | dive into the code and see what the community will output | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Oh, fond memories of it. It was the first time when I understood | that when you fly to the Moon, not only you have to cross the | Moon's orbit, but you have to do it when Moon itself is nearby. | If you are 1/4 orbital period ahead of it, you are screwed. | | It also ruined space movies like "Gravity" for me, because | pointing the nose to the space station in 50 km and applying | thrust towards it turns out to be a _sure_ way to NOT get to that | station! | | Edit: fixed the thrust direction | austinl wrote: | I had a similar experience when playing Kerbal for the first | time in high school. I thought that NASA got to the moon by | simply thrusting in a straight line from Earth in a way that | would intersect with the moon's orbit and boy was I wrong! | | But now I've found that most people I talk to about this -- | that also weren't alive during the space race where this was | regularly explained on television -- have the same naive idea | that you can get to the moon by going straight up at it with | the right timing. | | Instead, you learn that you need to enter orbit and burn | prograde at your apoapsis, burn retrograde at the moon's | periapsis, etc. -- really fascinating and complex stuff! If the | curriculum would've allowed it, I feel like I could've spent a | whole semester playing and learning from KSP -- these kind of | games are truly the top of "games for learning" genre. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Yes, the key here is to understand that you are not exactly | flying, but always falling towards something, and you need to | change the trajectory of your fall to get anywhere. | | So space flight is much closer to sky diving than to air | flight. | zamadatix wrote: | That's actually the easiest way to get to the Mun in my | opinion. No need to plan anything anything just shoot | straight up. If you don't get an orbital encounter initially | just keep shooting up until you do, it'll happen many times | before you reach Kerbin Escape velocity. No need to time | anything or plan certain maneuvers. | | Basically shoot upwards until you get an encounter, speed up | until it auto slows you down near the Mun, then kill velocity | to fall in and land. | | Grossly and hilariously inefficient, but actually easier to | perform than the "correct" way (and typically faster in | player-time). | afterburner wrote: | Even just knowing basic physics ruined Gravity for me, let | alone orbital dynamics. | sabjut wrote: | I first discovered this game back in school at around 2010-2011 | and it quickly turned into one of the defining games of my | childhood. I wish I had some numbers but I am certain that I | played hundreds of hours playing this game, installing | countless mods, learning orbital dynamics, spaceflight history, | and so much more. I flew to mars and back, landed on the moon, | programmed flight computers (sometime catastrophically wrong), | docked so many different vehicles in orbit and generally had | the time of my life in this game. Dan's Orbiterpage and his | world class mods for the game (including the excellent sound | mod) really made this game (or sim, whatever you call it) | shine. I probably also spent days of my life browsing | orbithangar for the coolest new vehicles. | | At some point I discovered Kerbal Space Program and eventually | got older and had less time for Space Sims altogether, but | Orbiter (especially the 2010P1 version) will remain closest to | my heart. | | I am really happy to see this game become open source. | wedesoft wrote: | I think you meant to say "pointing the nose to the space | station in 50 km and applying thrust towards it turns out to be | a sure way to NOT get to that station" | | Edited: made mistake as well ;) | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Yeah, my bad english. Used word 'thrust' to describe a burn | in the opposite direction, totally forgetting that thrust is | a reactionary force. :-/ | wedesoft wrote: | Orbiter 2016 is a brilliant game. I am currently trying to do a | small space simulator in Clojure | (https://github.com/wedesoft/sfsim25) and I probably should take | a look at the Orbiter source code. | AstralStorm wrote: | It so happens that Orbiter is extremely well factored which | should make implementing new graphics APIs reasonably easy. (Due | to having a client-server version.) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-28 19:00 UTC)