SSU Development Thread (2.0 to 3.0)

[Urwumpe]

I think it probably uses less memory without the D. I'm sure there's some benefit to not having the D, otherwise the thing would be on by default, and we wouldn't need to add it.

Without D, there is also better performance, since the D makes the texture stored uncompressed and in a format for easier painting in different memory than usual textures. On some GPU implementations, the dynamic textures are even stored in normal RAM and transfered into the GPU for every frame.

That is why I want to limit the amount of dynamic textures in SSU to the minimum necessary.

 

[GLS]

The code is pretty much ready for the TAA, just missing the positions, the masses and the meshes.

 

[Urwumpe]

The code is pretty much ready for the TAA, just missing the positions, the masses and the meshes.

How did you include it into the mission file?

 

[GLS]

How did you include it into the mission file?

Yes. I also added the STS-76 launch scenario to see it in action.... or just to see it as it just sits there :lol:. I'm just fine tuning the aft position of the External Airlock, and then I'll move to update the manual with the new parameters. If anybody has there's anything extra to add there (license, thanks, etc), just say.

BTW: I noticed that bottom of the External Airlock is way below the bottom of the PLB.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes. I also added the STS-76 launch scenario to see it in action.... or just to see it as it just sits there :lol:.

Actually I meant... which parameters do I need to support in the Mission Editor? :lol:

 

[Donamy]

Yes. I also added the STS-76 launch scenario to see it in action.... or just to see it as it just sits there :lol:. I'm just fine tuning the aft position of the External Airlock, and then I'll move to update the manual with the new parameters. If anybody has there's anything extra to add there (license, thanks, etc), just say.

BTW: I noticed that bottom of the External Airlock is way below the bottom of the PLB.

Looks ok to me.

 

[GLS]

Actually I meant... which parameters do I need to support in the Mission Editor? :lol:

Oh, that. "ODSZpos" was removed, the new ones are "UseTAA" (default=false) to enable the TAA, at what I call the forward position (between the bulkhead and the ExAL), and "AftTAA" (default=false) to place it aft of the ExAL. When the meshes arrive the code and manual will be updated.

Looks ok to me.

But that is not the ExAL that I have...

 

[Urwumpe]

Oh, that. "ODSZpos" was removed, the new ones are "UseTAA" (default=false) to enable the TAA, at what I call the forward position (between the bulkhead and the ExAL), and "AftTAA" (default=false) to place it aft of the ExAL. When the meshes arrive the code and manual will be updated.


But that is not the ExAL that I have...

How do you tell that a forward TAA and no ODS is used?

I still think that even a solution like "PLBIVASystems=TAA,ODS,TAA,Spacehab" would be easier to understand for all involved.

 

[GLS]

How do you tell that a forward TAA and no ODS is used?

I still think that even a solution like "PLBIVASystems=TAA,ODS,TAA,Spacehab" would be easier to understand for all involved.

UseTAA=TRUE
UseODS=FALSE
UseExtAL=TRUE (if you want the external airlock)

 

[Donamy]

UseTAA=TRUE
UseODS=FALSE
UseExtAL=TRUE (if you want the external airlock)

A couple of issues with this.

Where the hatches go, change according to where the Adapter is placed, also the fabric cover, over the hatch.

 

[GLS]

A couple of issues with this.

Where the hatches go, change according to where the Adapter is placed, also the fabric cover, over the hatch.

There's always 3 hatches, right? And only the top one is used for EVA, so AFAIK there's only one cover which is always there. The other 2 hatches are always connected to something. The only issue I see is having a cover on the airlock hatch (internal or external), as it might be, or not, connected to something.

 

[Donamy]

Hmmm, lets's think for a minute. Always, a hatch on the front bulkhead of the orbiter. That should be added. STS-88 had 4 hatches, unless it was removed from the TAA, and covered. A second cover is needed for flights with no ODS. I think STS-107, only had 2 hatches.

 

[SiameseCat]

No and the SSRMS is already published on OHM as a separate add-on complete with its own documentation. So I think we should consider a completely separate add-on not really connected to SSU.

The SSRMS is basically a separate addon; the main reason it's in the SSU repo is because the SSRMS code uses some stuff from libUltra, in the SSU codebase. We shouldn't be including any SSRMS stuff in the SSU release.

 

[GLS]

The SSRMS is basically a separate addon; the main reason it's in the SSU repo is because the SSRMS code uses some stuff from libUltra, in the SSU codebase. We shouldn't be including any SSRMS stuff in the SSU release.

OK, I'll remove the SSRMS files from the release list then.

---------- Post added at 12:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 AM ----------

Hmmm, lets's think for a minute. Always, a hatch on the front bulkhead of the orbiter. That should be added. STS-88 had 4 hatches, unless it was removed from the TAA, and covered. A second cover is needed for flights with no ODS. I think STS-107, only had 2 hatches.

So the TAA only has 2 hatches, the top and the aft one. And the ExAL only has 2 as well, the aft one and the ODS one. Add to this the bulkhead hatch and it fits well. Does it work this way?

---------- Post added at 12:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------

I added the following to the Credits section of the manual:

SLC-6 uses part of VandenbergAFB-2006 by Usonian.

Good or bad?

 

[Donamy]

The orbiter should have a hatch at the front bulkhead, always. The TAA has only one hatch at the "T" section, with a fabric cover. The Airlock, has 2 hatches and 2 covers if the ODS isn't used.

 

[GLS]

The orbiter should have a hatch at the front bulkhead, always. The TAA has only one hatch at the "T" section, with a fabric cover. The Airlock, has 2 hatches and 2 covers if the ODS isn't used.

So it all still works that way. Only the bulkhead hatch and both ExAL hatches might need covers. Could you put the covers in a separate group? Then we could hide/show the covers as needed. Would the same trick work on the TAA supports? They are only used when it is installed aft of the ExAL.

 

[Donamy]

The covers need to be animated also, seperate from the hatches. We could have 2 TAA, one with supports, one without.

 

[GLS]

The covers need to be animated also, seperate from the hatches. We could have 2 TAA, one with supports, one without.

For now I think the idea was just to have the TAA, so it is possible to do STS-88, 74 and such. If the covers are in a separate group, the animations can be added later without further mesh work.

 

[Donamy]

I thought we were talking about later.

 

[GLS]

I thought we were talking about later.

Can you make it in 2 or 3 days? If not, then it will wait.