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

[GLS]

Corrected some errors in the D3D9 version of the new HSI stuff... yes, I managed to run D3D9! :woohoo:
It seems the problem in my laptop is not enough power. Recently I put the battery back in to see if the power-offs continued to happen, and it had been running well until today the screen blinked for an instant. Sometime later I got an indication that the cable was unplugged (it wasn't, and there was no power outage) and the power and battery lights started blinking. Re-plugged the cable and it now says it's connected. Decided to see what would happen when running D3D9 and it held. Didn't try the NVIDIA yet.
Tomorrow I'll try to measure the cable power output, but it probably will have good Vs but not enough As... anyway, should be cheaper to buy a new power converter than a new laptop. :shrug:

 

[GLS]

So, the new pad versions are pretty much finished, only the 1981 version is "incomplete" (missing the original GVA GOX vents, which can wait for the new pad) so it is equal to the 1982 version.

Overall, there are only a few more "small" items for me to do, plus updating the manual, so things are not that far from the "Release Candidate" phase on my end. The only big item left is the Crawler (and other ground moving vessels)... :uhh:
How are things in the graphics department?

 

[DaveS]

So, the new pad versions are pretty much finished, only the 1981 version is "incomplete" (missing the original GVA GOX vents, which can wait for the new pad) so it is equal to the 1982 version.

Overall, there are only a few more "small" items for me to do, plus updating the manual, so things are not that far from the "Release Candidate" phase on my end. The only big item left is the Crawler (and other ground moving vessels)... :uhh:
How are things in the graphics department?

I've been busy fixing up the Ku band DA. It's been a bit slower than anticipated but things are coming fine for now. I'm just lacking the proper references on the deployment mechanism/actuator and just exactly where the jettison line is for the DA.


The cable bundles that goes between the DA and the Xo576 bulkhead are going to need a special animation as they're not located on the rotation point for the DA (Xo589, Yo99.6). The intersection is more Xo580, Yo95.23 which is where the guillotine assembly is located.

 

[GLS]

I've been busy fixing up the Ku band DA. It's been a bit slower than anticipated but things are coming fine for now. I'm just lacking the proper references on the deployment mechanism/actuator and just exactly where the jettison line is for the DA.


The cable bundles that goes between the DA and the Xo576 bulkhead are going to need a special animation as they're not located on the rotation point for the DA (Xo589, Yo99.6). The intersection is more Xo580, Yo95.23 which is where the guillotine assembly is located.

Cable animation, as well as the Rad hoses, are going to need much brains, which I currently don't have. :facepalm: The only thinking I've done on this tells me that the mesh will have to be segmented so the pipe/hose/cable can bend.

 

[DaveS]

Cable animation, as well as the Rad hoses, are going to need much brains, which I currently don't have. :facepalm: The only thinking I've done on this tells me that the mesh will have to be segmented so the pipe/hose/cable can bend.

That shouldn't be too much trouble on my end, to add those segments. You're thinking of animating them like the ducts on the CISS? It's should be the same general principle physics involved, so it would not look weird. Flex hose vs flex duct. and flex cable. The flex cables that should move on the Ku band DA are in fact already segmented (I have redone all of the external cabling to match actual photos).

 

[GLS]

That shouldn't be too much trouble on my end, to add those segments. You're thinking of animating them like the ducts on the CISS? It's should be the same general principle physics involved, so it would not look weird. Flex hose vs flex duct. and flex cable. The flex cables that should move on the Ku band DA are in fact already segmented (I have redone all of the external cabling to match actual photos).

The CISS was much simpler.

---------- Post added at 11:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------

New pad versions are now available!

 

[GLS]

This is itching me so I have to ask: currently the area on top of the wing behind the RCC panels has the texture showing with quite a distortion.... so how did it look "good" before? Was the texture stretched in that area? Or will the new texture need to be stretched? It looks to me like the XYZ points moved, but the UV mapping remained the same... :uhh:
I just want to be sure that we are making the mapping with the UV coordinates and not by shifting parts of the texture so it looks good.

---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 PM ----------

I just took a quick look at the UV coordinates and for most of the Orbiter.msh they are like this: "0.278788 -0.633113" which, yes works but, why not use the 0.0-1.0 range??? :shrug:

 

[Wolf]

This is itching me so I have to ask: currently the area on top of the wing behind the RCC panels has the texture showing with quite a distortion.... so how did it look "good" before? Was the texture stretched in that area? Or will the new texture need to be stretched? It looks to me like the XYZ points moved, but the UV mapping remained the same... :uhh:
I just want to be sure that we are making the mapping with the UV coordinates and not by shifting parts of the texture so it looks good.

---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 PM ----------

I just took a quick look at the UV coordinates and for most of the Orbiter.msh they are like this: "0.278788 -0.633113" which, yes works but, why not use the 0.0-1.0 range??? :shrug:

I think DaveS said he fixed the issue but for some reason he has not checked in the new meshes...
I ve done my best to change the textures to fit the mesh in all other areas (mainly the vertical stabilizer and the FRCS module).
The new textures for all orbiter variants were ready to be released but in light of the new shuttle TPS schemes that Dave posted I am now back to work fixing some details that were missing before.
The textures are almost done and I am confident I will release them soon on OH.

PS: the wing textures in the affected area were never changed BTW. I have no idea why the distortion popped up recently. Same for the side hatch issue; it had been fixed and the suddenly we got it back again...

 

[GLS]

I think DaveS said he fixed the issue but for some reason he has not checked in the new meshes...
I ve done my best to change the textures to fit the mesh in all other areas (mainly the vertical stabilizer and the FRCS module).

Yes, if the general shape of some parts changed, then the texture also has to be changed, but that's it. IMO, distortions are 100% a UV issue.

The textures are almost done and I am confident I will release them soon on OH.

No point in releasing before SSU 5.0 is out (which should also be soon).

 

[Wolf]

No point in releasing before SSU 5.0 is out (which should also be soon).

For sure I would like to check them against the new mesh which should include the wing distortion fix before release, but that’s not my call :shrug:

 

[GLS]

For sure I would like to check them against the new mesh which should include the wing distortion fix before release, but that’s not my call :shrug:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tile missalignment visible on the center of the tail, on image 6 in your thread, is a result of wrong mapping?

 

[Wolf]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tile missalignment visible on the center of the tail, on image 6 in your thread, is a result of wrong mapping?

It could be. One thing though is that the two vertical stab textures are not perfectly specular. Initially I used the left one (horizontally rotated by 180 degrees) to get its right counterpart but surprisingly the tiles boundaries where the rudder/speedbrake inserts into the stabilizer did not match.
I had to edit the right side to fix this hence the two are not identical. Maybe this could be the reason why the leading edge black tiles are misaligned. Interesting to note though that they are the same on the real orbiter.

 

[DaveS]

It could be. One thing though is that the two vertical stab textures are not perfectly specular. Initially I used the left one (horizontally rotated by 180 degrees) to get its right counterpart but surprisingly the tiles boundaries where the rudder/speedbrake inserts into the stabilizer did not match.
I had to edit the right side to fix this hence the two are not identical. Maybe this could be the reason why the leading edge black tiles are misaligned. Interesting to note though that they are the same on the real orbiter.

If you could post the textures once you are done with them, I could take a look at the mapping. Things would fit nicely if we eliminated the use of different textures for each side and used just one texture for both sides. AFAIK, only Enterprise had a mismatched vertical stabilizer TPS configuration and that was only in her original ALT configuration. The operational orbiters all had the same TPS configuration on both sides of the vertical stabilizer.

 

[Wolf]

If you could post the textures once you are done with them, I could take a look at the mapping

I’ll do that

 

[GLS]

One thing I noticed sometime ago, and confirmed just now, is that the vc mesh pokes out quite a lot in the fwd window frame area. I'm shifting the vc mesh to a better position so it looks better (not the "big" vc mesh, but only the simple one that is shown when in external view).

 

[Wolf]

One thing I noticed sometime ago, and confirmed just now, is that the vc mesh pokes out quite a lot in the fwd window frame area. I'm shifting the vc mesh to a better position so it looks better (not the "big" vc mesh, but only the simple one that is shown when in external view).

That would improve a lot the look in that area. Much appreciated, thanks :thumbup:

 

[GLS]

That would improve a lot the look in that area. Much appreciated, thanks :thumbup:

That is up! It isn't perfect as some small bits of the vc window frames still poke out (the vc and fwd fuselage have different shapes), but it looks good from almost all angles.

I also made a few more changes:
- fixed some issues with the SRBs;
- added altitude density calculation to the smart speedbrake, so KSC landings should be a bit closer to EDW (although it might not have the correct implementation);
- updated the manual.

 

[GLS]

DaveS, you probably know "how to use" the Crawler, could you write some words on it, both for the manual, and also for me to know what it can do while I'm fixing it?

 

[DaveS]

DaveS, you probably know "how to use" the Crawler, could you write some words on it, both for the manual, and also for me to know what it can do while I'm fixing it?

There should be document in Doc\Space Shuttle Ultra that explains the basics. Then there's this post: https://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=168475&postcount=79

 

[GLS]

After the new aerosurfaces updates I noticed the following: SSU scenario saved after ET SEP and post SSME dump; when the scenario is launched from the saved state the orbiter shows the elevons in full up deflection and rudder in full right. Any idea why is this happening?

This should (finally) be fixed in the latest revision.