SSU Development Thread (2.0 to 3.0)

[DaveS]

Can you see it in this photo? Atlantis, VAB for STS-135.

 

[Donamy]

Not so much pronounced at that angle, but they are there.

comparisons:

 

[Urwumpe]

Not so much pronounced at that angle, but they are there.

Well - no and yes. :lol:

No, there are not especially round parts.
But yes, you are right, there are not two RCC panels in that region ending at the same angle and forming a straight line spanning multiple RCC panels.

 

[Donamy]

I think it looks more real the before way.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think it looks more real the before way.

In that comparison, I have to say you are right.

Much better would be IMHO, if the transition between the RCC and the HRSI would be correctly represented by triangles - they should not cost us much and look always crispy from any distance and angle.

 

[Donamy]

I agree, but that would be way to much work. The best way for this release would be before the mapping change. Also, when I sgreed to fix the problems from before, and ultimately redid the whole model. It was with the promise that I would be consulted on any changes done to the mesh. I wasn't.

 

[Urwumpe]

BTW, taking the features of this release as reference - how much work would minimal be needed for bringing a SSU after landing back on the launch pad again?

Minimal means: Even allowing magically levitated parts and non-standard processes. Even in a really short time.

 

[Donamy]

BTW, taking the features of this release as reference - how much work would minimal be needed for bringing a SSU after landing back on the launch pad again?

Minimal means: Even allowing magically levitated parts and non-standard processes. Even in a really short time.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[GLS]

In that comparison, I have to say you are right.

Much better would be IMHO, if the transition between the RCC and the HRSI would be correctly represented by triangles - they should not cost us much and look always crispy from any distance and angle.

Yes, like I said yesterday, have the RCC on one side and the carrier panels on the other, and the border has the correct shape with that curve.

 

[Donamy]

Yes, like I said yesterday, have the RCC on one side and the carrier panels on the other, and the border has the correct shape with that curve.

Would take many hours to do. Easier to go back to the before way for now.

 

[GLS]

BTW, taking the features of this release as reference - how much work would minimal be needed for bringing a SSU after landing back on the launch pad again?

Minimal means: Even allowing magically levitated parts and non-standard processes. Even in a really short time.

We would need an LCC to get the SSME controllers thru the correct pre-launch sequence (Post-SD STBY, CO STBY, PSN-1/PSN-2/PSN-3)... and a LCC <-> shuttle network... still far away IMO.

 

[Urwumpe]

I have no idea what that means.

Well, it means no direct demand for new meshes.

What I mean: Could we get in one or two releases to a point (after this release), in which it is possible to land a shuttle on a runway, power it down, teleport it by magic (or a 747) to Florida into its hangar, refit it by waving a finger for its next mission and then stack it by arcane powers on a MLP in the VAB for launching again.

No realistic. Not detailed. Not even beautiful. Just a way to finish the circle and then later implement the small details in processing the Shuttle.

Maximal we have a Panel2D somewhere to visualize what happens.

How fast could we arrive there?

 

[GLS]

Would take many hours to do. Easier to go back to the before way for now.

Then it can't be that black line, it needs to be the carrier panels (to look smooth over the "border") or it looks like a shadow.

 

[Urwumpe]

We would need an LCC to get the SSME controllers thru the correct pre-launch sequence (Post-SD STBY, CO STBY, PSN-1/PSN-2/PSN-3)... and a LCC <-> shuttle network... still far away IMO.

We can already load a scenario in which all this was already done. It can't be too hard to cheat by magic, we just need to get all subsystems into a defined state before launch again.

And a LCC<-> Shuttle network is not too hard or far away. We just need to avoid trying to do everything realistic from the start, even if its our primary goal... a working bicycle is more playable than a car with two wheels.

 

[Donamy]

Then it can be that black line, it needs to be the carrier panels (to look smooth over the "border") or it looks like a shadow.

Is that what DaveS told you. I doesn't look like a shadow, it gives the illusion of the curved wing shape.

 

[DaveS]

Then it can be that black line, it needs to be the carrier panels (to look smooth over the "border") or it looks like a shadow.

Yes which is why I removed it in the latest iteration. It just looks wrong, like it doesn't belong there at all.

 

[Donamy]

Well, it means no direct demand for new meshes.

What I mean: Could we get in one or two releases to a point (after this release), in which it is possible to land a shuttle on a runway, power it down, teleport it by magic (or a 747) to Florida into its hangar, refit it by waving a finger for its next mission and then stack it by arcane powers on a MLP in the VAB for launching again.

No realistic. Not detailed. Not even beautiful. Just a way to finish the circle and then later implement the small details in processing the Shuttle.

Maximal we have a Panel2D somewhere to visualize what happens.

How fast could we arrive there?

Isn't that basically done by restarting with a different scenario ?

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes which is why I removed it in the latest iteration. It just looks wrong, like it doesn't belong there at all.

It was also astronomical units away from where it was supposed to be after a remapping. Donamy is quite right, without it, its more wrong than with it.

 

[Donamy]

Yes which is why I removed it in the latest iteration. It just looks wrong, like it doesn't belong there at all.

I dissagree !!

---------- Post added at 02:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------

So are we going to have two Orbiter meshes ?

 

[GLS]

Is that what DaveS told you. I doesn't look like a shadow, it gives the illusion of the curved wing shape.

On the image you posted yesterday, it looks to me like there's a vertical gap between the RCC and the carrier panels in that area.
I'm not an expert on this mesh/texture interaction business, but I still think it's either the border gets modified to the correct shape, or there will have to be carrier panels on the RCC part, and that all has to line up correctly.

Correction: on the previous post I said "Then it can be that black line" it should be "Then it can't be that black line"