Jump to content

Talk:Orbiter (simulator)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Orbiter (sim))

Multiple issues

[edit]

Can someone please clarify in what way these multiple issues apply to this article? Currently it has {{Multiple issues|refimprove = June 2010|fansite=July 2010|essay = July 2010|cleanup = July 2010|lead too short = July 2010}} I'd be happy to work on fixing these, and will, but I think some of these issues are a bit tenuous.

I'll also try and clean up the Original research in About the Simulator section. Metaphorazine (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask Jj98, who added the tags. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've posted to his talk page asking for some clarification. If he doesn't respond, I'll see what I can do to tidy it up. Metaphorazine (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did, there are numerous issues, including fancruft and essay. Also, this top section needs expansion by WP:LEAD. I don't know, you should ask or contact Martin Schweiger, the creator of Orbiter, he only knows about it. --JJ98 (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely see what you mean about the lead needing expansion, it is currently lacking. If the lead is re-written to be more descriptive, and the Included Spacecraft and the Orbiter Addons sections are re-written to be less list-like, and the article as a whole is better sourced and less conversational, would this address the majority of your concerns? Metaphorazine (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-worded the lead and the first three paragraphs of the 'About the Simulator' section. Can anyone comment as to if I'm on the right track here? Metaphorazine (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't already read it, I might suggest WP:VG/GL, the video games WikiProject guidelines/manual of style. That might give you a bit more advice on how to proceed. As to the changes in general... I think they're OK for the most part, but I think it's unusual to put reception stuff in the lead unless it's really really significant (e.g., game of the year). Other editors might see it as being non-neutral or fansite-like. There's still a lot of original research-sounding stuff in the about section. I definitely think you can go farther. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that reference, I think it's assisted me greatly. Some of the things that it suggests should be there are obviously not applicable (there's no plot!) but overall I think it's given me a lot of help with the tone. I've now re-written the lead keeping these principles and your comments in mind and I think it's an improvement, what do you think? If you feel it has expanded the lead sufficiently, could that tag be removed? Metaphorazine (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the lead and the first three paragraphs have been tidied up, expanded on, and referenced. I feel that they are definitely an improvement, but would appreciate anyone's thoughts on this process as I may be a bit close to the topic considering how much attention I've given this article over the last few days. I've been concentrating on sourcing references and cleaning up some of the clumsy prose, hopefully someone else agrees that this is a step forward? I've also added several citation needed tags to the remainder of the article to give myself a roadmap for the rest of the article, if anyone thinks I've missed anything please jump in and tag it. Also, I have removed the "lead too short" part of the multiple issues tag at this stage. Metaphorazine (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've now completed all the editing that I intended to do when I first started working on this article, and I'm now fairly happy with it. As such, I've removed the multiple issues tag, as I feel it no longer applies. I've preserved it as a commented field for the moment in case anyone disagrees with un-tagging the article at this stage. Metaphorazine (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Included Spacecraft, Orbiter addons

[edit]

I feel these two sections don't really fit the tone of the article, and are part of the reasons why it was tagged in the first place. If there's no objections, I'll take a crack at re-writing them to be less of a simple list. Metaphorazine (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the long unformatted list of addons that was basically a 'me too' the whole way through.WP:NOTDIRECTORY I think the article looks a lot cleaner now. Metaphorazine (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Video Games assessment

[edit]

Just for future information, articles you want to nominate for GA class should be nominated at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. However since an assessment was requested, I'm checking this against WP:BCLASS. You can see the criteria below.

B-Class Criteria

Taken from WP:BCLASS

  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
    It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
    It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure.
    Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written.
    The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
    Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way.
    It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.


  • 1. - The article uses several WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and also references a Wiki, blogs and sourceforge, all of which are not reliable sources. For instance, techhaze.com states they are a blog. Another site, thespacereview.com, is staffed by a single person. Neither of these have an editorial process.
  • 2. - I'm on the fence with this one. It has a lot of useful data, but given that there is not a Reception (reviews) section I'm leaning towards a fail here.
  • 3. - Most of the necessary information is there, however it does not follow any standard, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Though it's a simulator, typically game/simulator articles have Gameplay, Development and Reception (aka reviews) sections to organize the article into a standard, structured format.
  • 4. - The prose seems to be in order, however given issues listed above I cannot pass this criteria, as its directly related.
  • 5. - The images have appropriate rationales and are useful in demonstrating the gameplay of the simulator. I would recommend resizing the thumbnails to the standard of 200px, however.
  • 6. - The article as of now is geared a bit more towards the space simulator enthusiast, and less toward a casual reader. It should cater to both, as oft times readers will stumble upon articles they don't typically read, and thus any article of any genre should be accessible.

The biggest issue plaguing the article at the moment are the plethora of unnecessary external links (see WP:ELNO and WP:ELMAYBE) and the lack of structure. Some references will also have to be replaced with more reliable sources for the article to be ready for GA class.

Assessed as C-Class --Teancum (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teancum has given some good advise here, if no-one has any objections I'll see what I can do about restructuring the article and chasing up some more reliable sources. It may be worthwhile sourcing images from the current version of Orbiter as well, the image in the infobox at least is from Orbiter 2006. Metaphorazine (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I removed the "Download Orbiter Sim" and "Download Orbiter Torrents" links (preserved, but hidden). They are very prominent links in the "Orbiter Official Website", so they are surplus here. If you want to download a program, most people will go straight to the homepage. The same goes for the "Seth's LandSAT Textures" link.

"Doug's Orbiter page", again, is easily found linked to on the "Orbiter Official Website".

OMP is still under heavy pre-release dev and not really a major part of Orbiter yet, it's not even mentioned in the article.

I've also reshuffled the order of the links in order of importance.

I shifted the Techhaze interview link into the References section; it makes for a good source on what the author wants from his sim.

This is my first edit! Please don't be harsh. I've not deleted anything, so please put things back and slap me gently on the wrist if I've messed up... OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrbiterSpacethingy, thanks for your contributions to this article! Your cleanups look good, though I was curious about the line "Only Newtonian mechanics are simulated; currently there is no simulation of relativistic effects[1].", is there any information that can be added as to what this means for the simulator? Does it make the simulator less accurate in some measurable way, or is it just a different way of doing the maths? Metaphorazine (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've added a bit... OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orbiter 2010P1 atmospheric effects with ISS in the foreground.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Orbiter 2010P1 atmospheric effects with ISS in the foreground.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Orbiter (simulator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

[edit]

I note three things missing from the article: 1) The manual is a critical component of the simulator, and should be mentioned as being required for planning successful spaceflights. 2) While the physics can be "realistic", one option allows for "ever-full" fuel which allows player an infinite duration of thrust/powered flight. 3) Navigation is via 2D heads-up displays, which provides only a very simple/crude diagram of orbit/flight path. While the article goes on at great length about the planetarium mode, the mode doesn't provide much of a view of the Solar System and virtually no display of the spacecraft trajectory. FWIW71.29.173.173 (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orbiter 2016

[edit]

Orbiter 2016 has been released on August 30, 2016. This is the first full release since 2010. (I'd update the article but am non markup savvy). http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/news.html http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/press/pressrelease2016.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.160.124 (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Space Engineers?

[edit]

How is Space Engineers - which is a completely different game, a completely different genre and has absolutely nothing in common with orbiter except for the setting relevant? Space Engineers is a Minecraft clone set in space. It doesn#t use any realistic physics whatsoever and is not about spaceflight but about building with bocks (like minecraft). I fail to soo why it should be included in the "see also" section (it was included there in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orbiter_(simulator)&diff=628662127&oldid=623202862) and should probably just be removed again. This looks like promotion/advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.156.133.4 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orbiter (simulator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

current manual for Orbiterが2010のもののままになっているけど — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.4.251.227 (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The orbiter-mods.com links/description were removed without cause/justification/reasoning. Links added back. 2600:1700:4930:D6C0:E8BA:60E2:1281:B5FA (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orbiter_(simulator)&oldid=1204573090"