SSU Development Thread (2.0 to 3.0)

[Donamy]

To you and your's also.

 

[Donamy]

No apology needed. Yes, all went well, travel was easy.

 

[SiameseCat]

I've checked in the new mesh from Donamy to the NewOrbiter-FromTrunk branch. I've also checked fixes for all the animations. The new mesh also includes both versions of the vertical stabilizer, so a "HasDragChute" option has been added to the mission file.

 

[DaveS]

Everything works good here, just two things: There's some kind of reflective item in the aft part of the PLB, it's rectangular in shape. And the second one is that the structure of the PLBDs bleed through the radiator panels:

 

[Donamy]

I'll check that out.

 

[barrygolden]

Amazing work you guys. Can't wait to see it come alive in orbiter. It would be great to see something like this added as an MFD or as another VC to follow the mission as did NASA with their 3D world. There is a MFD thats close but needs the globe.

 

[Urwumpe]

Amazing work you guys. Can't wait to see it come alive in orbiter. It would be great to see something like this added as an MFD or as another VC to follow the mission as did NASA with their 3D world. There is a MFD thats close but needs the globe.

The link is broken, but I believe Poscik has created something similar to this as stand-alone application.

 

[GLS]

The new mesh also includes both versions of the vertical stabilizer, so a "HasDragChute" option has been added to the mission file.

2 things:
1) is it a good ideia to have this option "active" before we're able to hide the switches in the cockpit? Wouldn't it be better to keep this behind the curtains for now? In a few months, after the mission editor is done, we can do a "cockpit landing stuff revamp" adding the drag chute and gear switches and lights (and logic behind) and also making the drag chute optional. Please discuss...
2) thanks :thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

Challenge accepted

Wouldn't it be better to keep this behind the curtains for now? In a few months, after the mission editor is done, we can do a "cockpit landing stuff revamp" adding the drag chute and gear switches and lights (and logic behind) and also making the drag chute optional.

I think that the VC should usually be good enough separated from the subsystem simulation of the drag chute, that we could affording having a few more dysfunctional switches more in the VC, than we already have.

What we should maybe include in this or one later release is a central class "Configuration" in all SSU modules, that allows an standardized access to such configuration issues of an orbiter. Would also make external/internal Airlock/ODS, Centaur, IUS or Spacelab configurations a lot easier to handle.

But since we are right now mostly in the post-STS-101 world, its a minor issue.

 

[GLS]

Challenge accepted



I think that the VC should usually be good enough separated from the subsystem simulation of the drag chute, that we could affording having a few more dysfunctional switches more in the VC, than we already have.

not following...

What we should maybe include in this or one later release is a central class "Configuration" in all SSU modules, that allows an standardized access to such configuration issues of an orbiter. Would also make external/internal Airlock/ODS, Centaur, IUS or Spacelab configurations a lot easier to handle.

But since we are right now mostly in the post-STS-101 world, its a minor issue.

Isn't/Couldn't this be handled my the Mission class?

 

[Urwumpe]

not following...

Does it matter that we have switches that have no function? We only have problems with functions that have no switches.

Also, we still have many switches without function, so why should two more push buttons be a problem?

Isn't/Couldn't this be handled my the Mission class?

It would be related - essentially just bundling the hardware aspect of the mission and making it possible to ask for the current hardware directly, instead of going via the mission.

 

[DaveS]

I noticed a few things more with the new orbiter. They are:

• Aft engine compartment NASA logos not round
• T0 umbilical panel textures too big and doesn't fit the cut-out
• Vertical stabilizer too far aft. The vertical stabilizer should begin at the Xo1307 bulkhead
• Visible gaps between the OMS pods and the Xo1307 bulkhead, screenshot included that shows this.

 

[Urwumpe]

Found this one while searching for some example Space Shuttle aerodynamic plots in the WWW... it contains the elevon schedule for load relief during ascent.

https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/...ce_Shuttle_Launches/Why_the_Wings_Stay_On.pdf

Would this be something for the next version of SSU then?

 

[DaveS]

Found some more gaps during pad/ET/orbiter fit checks as indicated by the arrows. Also, the ET umbilical wells are too deep as indicated by the arrow.

 

[Donamy]

Found some more gaps during pad/ET/orbiter fit checks as indicated by the arrows. Also, the ET umbilical wells are too deep as indicated by the arrow.

Gee, Isn't there anything you liked ?

 

[DaveS]

Gee, Isn't there anything you liked ?

Overall it is good but of course there's going to be some parts that needs some final attention. And besides I was not even looking for any problems with the mesh when I spotted them. I was busy enough getting the ET aligned properly.

 

[Urwumpe]

Overall it is good but of course there's going to be some parts that needs some final attention. And besides I was not even looking for any problems with the mesh when I spotted them. I was busy enough getting the ET aligned properly.

Can you get some drawings for Donamy to use as reference for the ET interfaces?

I just want to avoid that you are both doing things correctly and great, but in different coordinate systems or so.

 

[DaveS]

Can you get some drawings for Donamy to use as reference for the ET interfaces?

I just want to avoid that you are both doing things correctly and great, but in different coordinate systems or so.

No drawings but I could put together a package of photos that shows the ET umbilical wells in reasonable detail.

---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------

Orbiter ET umbilical well photo package (76.2 MB): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24122088/ET_umb_well_photos.zip
They show both unmated, mated and closed out configurations with the red purge baggies installed.

 

[Urwumpe]

No drawings but I could put together a package of photos that shows the ET umbilical wells in reasonable detail.

Thats nice, but not what I intend. I want to avoid any unreasonable discussions about who is doing which mesh wrong. I know that there will always be some artistic freedom and when two artists collide, communications are badly neccessary.

But just don't waste energy for discussing which mesh is now reference for the other. So, better agree on the coordinates of the interfaces in solid measurable numbers between the two units.

 

[DaveS]

Thats nice, but not what I intend. I want to avoid any unreasonable discussions about who is doing which mesh wrong. I know that there will always be some artistic freedom and when two artists collide, communications are badly neccessary.

But just don't waste energy for discussing which mesh is now reference for the other.

Well, the ET is made from the SLWT SDH published by LM in December 1997, 2 months before the first SLWT was transported to KSC.