Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Space Flight Simulator > Orbiter SDK
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Orbiter SDK Orbiter software developers post your questions and answers about the SDK, the API interface, LUA, meshing, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-16-2016, 04:47 PM   #16
Face
Beta Tester
 
Face's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by indy91 View Post
 How are attachments different in that regard? Is there no Superstructure CG calculated with attachments?
Excerpt from API_Reference.pdf, chapter 7:
Quote:
Docking ports allow individual vessel objects to connect with each other, forming a superstructure. Orbiter automatically calculates the physical properties of the superstructure from the properties of the individual constituents. In particular, the following properties are managed by Orbiter:
total mass: The mass of the superstructure is the sum of masses of the individual vessels
centre of mass. The centre of mass of the superstructure is calculated from the individual vessel masses and their relative position
inertia tensor: A simplified rigid-body model is applied to calculate an inertia tensor for the superstructure.
effects of forces: any forces acting on individual vessels (thrust, drag, lift, etc.) are transformed into the superstructure frame and applied.



Similar to docking ports, attachment points allow to connect two or more vessel objects. There are a few important differences:
Docking ports establish peer connections, attachments establish parent-child hierarchies: A parent vessel can have multiple attached children, but each child can only be attached to a single parent.
Attachments use a simplified physics engine: the root parent alone defines the object's trajectory (both for freespace and atmospheric flight). The children are assumed to have no influence on flight behaviour.
Orbiter establishes docking connections automatically if the docking ports of two vessels are brought close to each other. Attachment connections are only established by API calls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indy91 View Post
 Also a problem, you can't switch between CSM cockpit and LM cockpit. What if we want a T-22h launch scenario with the LM Closeout procedures one day? Ok, ok, not all that big of an issue.
In AU, I've also worked with virtual "cockpits" inside the monolithic vessel. It was possible to switch views between all of the command-rooms of the base, e.g. hangars and towers. I think it is not that big of an issue to implement this in a modular way. But YMMV, of course.
Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 12-16-2016, 05:21 PM   #17
indy91
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 Excerpt from API_Reference.pdf, chapter 7:
Thanks for the excerpt. Attachments might not be the way to go then. But I'm sure @dseagrav has already has an idea how he wants to do it. If we have enough control over the docking method for stage separations, then having the stages "docked" will work pretty well, I think.

Quote:
In AU, I've also worked with virtual "cockpits" inside the monolithic vessel. It was possible to switch views between all of the command-rooms of the base, e.g. hangars and towers. I think it is not that big of an issue to implement this in a modular way. But YMMV, of course.
I understand. However, the difference is that we have different stages, separated in a certain sequence and they should still be functional in some way after staging. Right now upon separation there is a lot of code dealing with creating a new vessel, giving it some of the properties of the combined stage etc. Another example would be the Launch Escape Tower. If you don't jettison it during the ascent, then it messes with the staging sequence. The mesh used to just vanish when the S-II stage is separated. The physical properties aren't right etc.

All this code making sure everything works despite the LET being attached could be eliminated. That's why I think it is an improvement and simplification to have the stages separated from the beginning. Of course this only applies to NASSP.
indy91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2016, 07:17 PM   #18
Face
Beta Tester
 
Face's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by indy91 View Post
 Thanks for the excerpt. Attachments might not be the way to go then. But I'm sure @dseagrav has already has an idea how he wants to do it. If we have enough control over the docking method for stage separations, then having the stages "docked" will work pretty well, I think.
Keep in mind that you'll have to tell Orbiter to ignore the aerodynamic properties of the LM and some stages while they are docked together, because it doesn't take into account (AFAIK) that the stages are behind each other and the LM is within the structure. I guess your drag functions will need to be docking-aware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by indy91 View Post
 That's why I think it is an improvement and simplification to have the stages separated from the beginning. Of course this only applies to NASSP.
I understand your reasoning, but I disagree. How you invest your time is non of my business, though, so - in order to not further go off-topic - I guess we can leave it at that.
Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Space Flight Simulator > Orbiter SDK


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:53 AM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 - 2012, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.