FSX SpacePort... anyone?

[SpaceFlightNut]

Has anyone seen this? Thoughts? Still in development, but it looks promising. Their web site promises a lot... looks like you can assemble your own space craft, although it seems to be limited to current and historic hardware, and much less "granular" than KSP. 

They are on steam as well, "FSX SpacePort"

 

[Vanamonde]

Thread moved to The Lounge, since it's not about KSP. 

[SpaceFlightNut]

Ooops! Sorry! and thanks!

[0111narwhalz]

I have associations to the name SpacePort.

^{RIP Spaceport o7}

[YNM]

8 hours ago, SpaceFlightNut said:

FSX SpacePort

Addon to FSX:SE or just named so ?

[razark]

45 minutes ago, YNM said:

Addon to FSX:SE or just named so ?

The start of the video says it's an add-on.

[YNM]

9 hours ago, SpaceFlightNut said:

"granular"

*modular

14 minutes ago, razark said:

The start of the video says it's an add-on.

Wow.

So, do we get all the insane FSX:SE physics or will the mod improve it (and in which direction) ? XD

Edited November 2, 2018 by YNM

[SpaceFlightNut]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

*modular

Wow.

So, do we get all the insane FSX:SE physics or will the mod improve it (and in which direction) ? XD

No, I meant granular. Looks like you can have, say, a component, a rocket stage, but the engines are fixed, you can't change them.

re: physics, LOL, I am a long-time FSX user, and you do get this behavior, but only when you "tweak" with the original flight model. Default aircraft do not behave like this.

From their web site:

Quote

 

FSX SpacePort does not rely on FSX's flight model - instead, it completely replaces it with its own physics engine which implements a sophisticated deterministic physics solver to precisely simulate spaceflight in real time.

...

Along with the physics engine comes a sophisticated, high-fidelity collision engine, completely user-definable through FSX's SimObject container expanded with spacecraft-specific functionality.

 

 

 

[razark]

6 hours ago, YNM said:

So, do we get all the insane FSX:SE physics

To be fair, it is Flight Simulator, not Crash Simulator.

[YNM]

9 hours ago, SpaceFlightNut said:

I meant granular

Spoiler

________

Anyway :

9 hours ago, SpaceFlightNut said:

you do get this behavior, but only when you "tweak" with the original flight model. Default aircraft do not behave like this.

Yeah, it's usually when you disable crash detection.

5 hours ago, razark said:

 To be fair, it is Flight Simulator, not Crash Simulator.

But isn't explosions (controlled or uncontrolled) the best part of spaceflight ? XD

[0111narwhalz]

53 minutes ago, YNM said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Nah, I'm pretty sure "granular" is the correct word. The physics engine works with small intervals ("granules") of time, then interpolates or integrates between them.

Honestly I'm not sure what a "modular" physics engine would be. Maybe the mechanics and thermodynamics and aerodynamics and so on are all modules that can operate independantly?

[YNM]

1 hour ago, 0111narwhalz said:

The physics engine works with small intervals ("granules") of time, then interpolates or integrates between them.

I think it was referring to the ability to build rockets from the ground up. This FSX 'Space Edition' will be closer to Orbiter in that regard, you can only choose from a list of premade rockets.

[SpaceFlightNut]

Again - I MEANT granular, as it applies to technical terminology:

gran·u·lar·i·ty

/ˌɡranyəˈlerədē/

noun

 

1. 1.

   the quality or condition of being granular.
2. 2.

   TECHNICAL

   the scale or level of detail present in a set of data or other phenomenon

 

If you are unsure of what I meant, just ask me - please don't try to correct me. 

Anyway - What I meant was, in KSP, we are allowed a high level of creativity - we are allowed to construct "what-if" launchers. We can choose from hundreds of components to assemble our own creations. I would call that very "granular".

This title, however, doesn't seem to allow such level of detail or, ahem, GRANULARITY (for definition, see above ) This title seems to allow for modular construction of different variations of a launch system, much like in the real life, but from set, established components. For example, I would assume that they would provide all parts necessary to construct all variants of NASA's SLS, be it crew, cargo, blocks 1, IB, 2, solid rocked boosters, upcoming advances liquid boosters, etc.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by SpaceFlightNut
capitalization

[SpaceFlightNut]

18 hours ago, YNM said:

I think it was referring to the ability to build rockets from the ground up. This FSX 'Space Edition' will be closer to Orbiter in that regard, you can only choose from a list of premade rockets.

No, not pre-made. You can assemble variations of launcher family from the components. Orbiter doesn't let you do that, AFAIK.

Found this link on their STEAM page:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1386859957

 

[NSEP]

To be honest its probably more like Orbiter and less like KSP, when it comes to the granularity.

Im definitely looking forward to the devolpment of this simulator and can't wait to download the demo to check it out.

[YNM]

Spoiler

14 hours ago, SpaceFlightNut said:

the scale or level of detail present in a set of data or other phenomenon

ie. do I draw to the last nut and bolt or is the centerline enough ? do we consider what happens each planck time or every second ? every millenia ? Do I measure to every metres, or nanometres ?

However,

ie. I can replace a pencil for a pen when I want to write. Or an estes E size motor for a homemade sugar rocket. Or a parachute I bought from store for rigged tarpaulin. Or such.

 

EDIT : If it was 'coarser' as you said, then that's reeally bad news, considering how badly KSP has trajectory shift and stuff with a fairly 'fine' step size.

FSX physics for spaceflight ? I suggest adding a multiplayer mode so we can laugh it off.

 

14 hours ago, SpaceFlightNut said:

You can assemble variations of launcher family from the components. Orbiter doesn't let you do that, AFAIK.

So I can't put a Delta-K on top of S-IB, but I can put a Centaur-G inside Shuttle ?

Edited November 4, 2018 by YNM

[LordFerret]

Interesting; But they should stick to flying airplanes and leave the rocket stuff to KSP.