Live data from Hacker News

Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

orbiter-forum.com

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#51
post #49

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 N…

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 ide…

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.

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#52
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 develop…

> 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.

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#53
post #34

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?

Better than just dying and taking the source with it.

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 develop…

> 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 co…

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.

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#55

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.

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

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.

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#56
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>> 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...

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.

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#57

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 N…

Even just knowing basic physics ruined Gravity for me, let alone orbital dynamics.

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#59
post #49

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 N…

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 ide…

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).

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#60
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ide…

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 t…

That is only possible if you have engines and fuel capable of sustaining a powered flight. We puny humans so far don't have it.
Post reply on HN