SSU Development thread (4.0 to 5.0) [DEVELOPMENT HALTED DUE TIME REQUIREMENTS!]

Status
Not open for further replies.

GLS

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
2,870
Points
188
Website
github.com
... and problems :facepalm:
It seems I forgot one small detail: the Earth is curved :uhh:, and so a 10Km long mesh doesn't sit fully on the ground.

A way to solve this issue is to break up the runway sides every 1000m or so, and then tilt them so they +/- follow the local curvature of the Earth. It's a total PITA, but IMO it would work wasn't a feature/bug in the base definition that makes the objects horizontal to the base location. So an object far from the base will be tilted, relative to the local surface, to match the base center surface. This makes the position and direction of the runways, relative to the base, important when deciding how much it curves.
I'm tempted to file a request/bug report for this...
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
AFAIR, there is a parameter in the surface base cfg to map it to the existing elevation...
 

GLS

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
2,870
Points
188
Website
github.com
AFAIR, there is a parameter in the surface base cfg to map it to the existing elevation...
Yes "MAPOBJECTSTOSPHERE", which when false places all objects on the base plane, so something far away from the base center will be up in the air. When true, as we have it, the objects will be moved vertically to match the local terrain, but their orientation will not change to match the location, so objects far be tilted in respect to the terrain. :shrug:
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Yes "MAPOBJECTSTOSPHERE", which when false places all objects on the base plane, so something far away from the base center will be up in the air. When true, as we have it, the objects will be moved vertically to match the local terrain, but their orientation will not change to match the location, so objects far be tilted in respect to the terrain. :shrug:

That sounds like a bug, it should be local vertical. :facepalm:
 

GLS

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
2,870
Points
188
Website
github.com
That sounds like a bug, it should be local vertical. :facepalm:

It also makes sense to me. I'll file a bug report, the thing is that this will make us depend of the next Orbiter release... whenever that might be.
 

GLS

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
2,870
Points
188
Website
github.com
Almost done with the lakebed runways: the mesh work is done (the numbers were an absolute total PITA :thumbsdown:), and I'm now "extracting" the runway coordinates for the GPCs.

On this final process I noticed that some parts (actual runway threshold and aimpoints) aren't currently painted (both Orbiter and GoogleEarth only have the runway outlines), and so I haven't "painted" them in the meshes. I'm inclined to add them, as they existed once and still are noticeable today, but I'd like more opinions before I embark on another day of work...
 

DaveS

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,429
Reaction score
680
Points
203
Almost done with the lakebed runways: the mesh work is done (the numbers were an absolute total PITA :thumbsdown:), and I'm now "extracting" the runway coordinates for the GPCs.

On this final process I noticed that some parts (actual runway threshold and aimpoints) aren't currently painted (both Orbiter and GoogleEarth only have the runway outlines), and so I haven't "painted" them in the meshes. I'm inclined to add them, as they existed once and still are noticeable today, but I'd like more opinions before I embark on another day of work...
Go ahead and add them. This is what the SCOM says: https://www.dropbox.com/s/girbjrh7tx7xm7b/RWY_VisualAimPoint.jpg?dl=0
 

GLS

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
2,870
Points
188
Website
github.com
Another issue I'm working is the temporary runway only appearing on the high-resolution tiles, which makes it only visible at about 2000 ft. :uhh:
Instead of working quite a few tiles and replacing the whole area, I'm only blending the new runway into the tile level above. Not perfect but much faster.
Here is the first tile worked:
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • edt.PNG
    edt.PNG
    122.2 KB · Views: 263

GLS

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
2,870
Points
188
Website
github.com
Edwards is open for business!!!
I'd like to post an image covering the whole thing, but the area is so large that the details aren't visible. :uhh:

Things to note: the runway meshes are pretty much correct horizontally, but in some areas they don't look so because they still don't follow the curvature of the Earth, which I'll do once this issue is worked one way or another.
Another thing is that there are 4 .elv files at level 12 (didn't check but I'm almost sure they are from the Antelope addon) that for some reason were deleted by tileedit, even though I didn't touch them and they don't cover the edited Edwards area but are actually around the tiles I touched (yes I know about the margins and it shouldn't be that). Anyway, as our method of instalation doesn't allow for file deletions, and as they are level 12, I'm inclined to leave this as is. :shrug:
 

DaveS

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,429
Reaction score
680
Points
203
Edwards is open for business!!!
I'd like to post an image covering the whole thing, but the area is so large that the details aren't visible. :uhh:

Things to note: the runway meshes are pretty much correct horizontally, but in some areas they don't look so because they still don't follow the curvature of the Earth, which I'll do once this issue is worked one way or another.
Another thing is that there are 4 .elv files at level 12 (didn't check but I'm almost sure they are from the Antelope addon) that for some reason were deleted by tileedit, even though I didn't touch them and they don't cover the edited Edwards area but are actually around the tiles I touched (yes I know about the margins and it shouldn't be that). Anyway, as our method of instalation doesn't allow for file deletions, and as they are level 12, I'm inclined to leave this as is. :shrug:
Looks great here! I added a hi-res runway texture for the main concrete runway (04R/22L) along with a correction to the runway lights and checked that in: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3lsqja1jgk5oxoc/SSU_EDW.jpg?dl=0
 

GLS

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
2,870
Points
188
Website
github.com
Looks great here! I added a hi-res runway texture for the main concrete runway (04R/22L) along with a correction to the runway lights and checked that in: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3lsqja1jgk5oxoc/SSU_EDW.jpg?dl=0

Finally had the chance to look at this... is the texture really needed? If the surface tiles were not that detailed it would make sense to have a runway texture (like in other places where the runway is like 10px long), but in there the tiles are very good and probably have more detail than the texture... :shrug:

Also, are we sure there are lights (centerline and outline) on the underruns/overruns?
Anyway, the order of the PAPI lights has to be changed as in MOGE only one set is visible, and currently that is the close-in aimpoint and IMO it should be the nominal.
 

DaveS

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,429
Reaction score
680
Points
203
Finally had the chance to look at this... is the texture really needed? If the surface tiles were not that detailed it would make sense to have a runway texture (like in other places where the runway is like 10px long), but in there the tiles are very good and probably have more detail than the texture... :shrug:
Yes, the texture is much more detailed and sharper than just the tiles alone.

Also, are we sure there are lights (centerline and outline) on the underruns/overruns?
This is more a limitation of D3D9Client/Orbiter as none of them implement the kind of setup that EDW is using. D39DClient is modeled after KSC's SLF while Orbiter is more a generic airport setup with the running light.

Anyway, the order of the PAPI lights has to be changed as in MOGE only one set is visible, and currently that is the close-in aimpoint and IMO it should be the nominal.
Go ahead and change it. I wonder how many is actually using the default inline client anyway?
 

GLS

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
2,870
Points
188
Website
github.com
Yes, the texture is much more detailed and sharper than just the tiles alone.
Here is a comparison with the texture shifted 100m to the side:
attachment.php

attachment.php

The texture does have sharper lines, but lacks the detail (and the accuracy) of the runway itself.


This is more a limitation of D3D9Client/Orbiter as none of them implement the kind of setup that EDW is using. D39DClient is modeled after KSC's SLF while Orbiter is more a generic airport setup with the running light.
Any images of the runway at night?
 

Attachments

  • 04.jpg
    04.jpg
    40.9 KB · Views: 247
  • 22.jpg
    22.jpg
    53.1 KB · Views: 284

DaveS

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,429
Reaction score
680
Points
203
Any images of the runway at night?
The best I got is HUD video of the STS-114 landing at EDW22L on August 9 2005.

---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 PM ----------

The texture does have sharper lines, but lacks the detail (and the accuracy) of the runway itself./QUOTE]
What do you mean by "accuracy? Just by being of a higher resolution, the textured runway should be more accurate.
 

GLS

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
2,870
Points
188
Website
github.com
The best I got is HUD video of the STS-114 landing at EDW22L on August 9 2005.
Could you please post a screen where the underrun is visible?

The texture does have sharper lines, but lacks the detail (and the accuracy) of the runway itself./QUOTE]
What do you mean by "accuracy? Just by being of a higher resolution, the textured runway should be more accurate.
Did you look at the images I posted?

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 PM ----------

I'm holding on the change to the EDW PAPI lights, as somehow there is a position difference between them in D3D9 and MOGE, and I'd like to find out where it comes from.
 

DaveS

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,429
Reaction score
680
Points
203
Last edited:

GLS

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
2,870
Points
188
Website
github.com
Here you go: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sgrynnwn7gbbt82/EDW22L_STS114.jpg?dl=0

Compare it to this similar image from STS-115 which landed at KSC33 on September 21 2006: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sgrynnwn7gbbt82/EDW22L_STS114.jpg?dl=0
It looks like there are outline and centerline lights only on the (main) runway, and, like I thought, the underrun only has the centerline lights. Except for the different and wider light line at the start of the runway, it kinda looks like the standard runway lights in Orbiter. :shrug:

(btw: you posted the same link twice....)


Yes. Are you talking about the barely readable runway numbers?
That and the tire markings, and the runway markings (which have a big offset and are of the wrong size/aspect ratio), wrong sized overruns/underruns and also it has a green tone that stands out in the middle of the desert... :uhh:

---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------

I'm holding on the change to the EDW PAPI lights, as somehow there is a position difference between them in D3D9 and MOGE, and I'd like to find out where it comes from.

So the issue is that while D3D9 looks at several PAPI entries as individual lights, MOGE only looks at the last, and uses that for both ends of the runway. So, as we have a different distance between the ends of the runway and the PAPI lights, one will not be correct in MOGE... if there wasn't the for runway 04 not having the underrun (or at least it not counting for the shuttle). :yes: This means the threshold for 04 is considered 1000ft down the runway, and the aimpoints reflect that offset. So in the end, switching the order of the ends for the PAPI entries makes it all look good.

Anyway, the runway lights in D3D9 are placed some distance above the runway (this is not a new bug... was it ever fixed?), but I can see lights that aren't in the video screen from STS-114....

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------

I just checked the D3D9 thread and the light issue only shows up on Orbiter BETA.

---------- Post added 03-11-18 at 02:10 AM ---------- Previous post was 03-10-18 at 07:05 PM ----------

I'm much happier with our runway situation now that what we had is leveled, and some new runways have been added. To add all the remaining runways would take tons of time, and given that there is a +/- "global coverage" with the current runways (and I'm now adding Yokota, Otis and Myrtle Beach), I'm going to do something else.
But before I'd like to ask if there are any requests I can attend to:
Tamanrasset
Atlantic City
Hoedspruit
Amilcar Cabral
Rio Gallegos
Beja
Dover
Dyess
Elmendorf
Esenboga
Fairford
Francis Gabreski
Las Palmas
Souda
Andersen
Ascencion
Honolulu
Keflavik
Wilmington
Koln/Bonn
King Khalid
Lincoln
Monrovia
Macdill
Orlando
Mountain Home
China Lake
Cherry Point
Oceana
Cecil Field
Pearce
Skid Strip
Pease
Ellsworth
Wake Island
Wallops
Halifax
Stephenville
Nassau
Goose Bay

(don't be greedy :p)
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Well, I would always vote for Cologne-Bonn.... its also the home of the European Astronaut Corps. :hmm:

(If I should be greedy, having the Cologne Cathedral as landmark near the glidepath would be fine. )
 

GLS

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
2,870
Points
188
Website
github.com
Well, I would always vote for Cologne-Bonn.... its also the home of the European Astronaut Corps. :hmm:

(If I should be greedy, having the Cologne Cathedral as landmark near the glidepath would be fine. )

Get me a 3d model of it that we can use and I'll place it in the correct position.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Get me a 3d model of it that we can use and I'll place it in the correct position.

Well, a good model is easy to find. Getting one with a suitable license for our work is the problem. :facepalm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top