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

[DaveS]

HasTAA=TRUE

Currently it CTDs, as you changed the name of the mesh used in the aft position (we only have one mesh so it was used for both positions, but now the aft position is targeted to a non-existing mesh).

BTW: if the extra-stuff in the aft TAA is "addon" to the fwd TAA, then it should all be in one mesh, and things hidden as needed.

Thanks, and it looks like the aft TAA position simply used a truss cradle similar to the External Airlock. Other than the truss cradle, it appears to be identical to the regular TAA. Interestingly enough I never got any CTDs, so I never thought to look in the Orbiter log. Here's my STS-95 mission file as it stands right now:

Name=STS-95
Orbiter=Discovery
OrbiterTexture=Discovery_9thmod
ET=SLWT
ETFRL=FALSE
SRM=RSRM
LaunchSite=KSC
LaunchPad=LC-39B
MLP=2
TargetInc=28.500000
TargetLAN=0.000000
MECOAlt=105000.000000
MECOVel=7966.023512
MECOFPA=1.326007
PerformRollToHeadsUp=TRUE
OMSAssistEnable=FALSE
OMSAssistDuration=102.000000
MaxSSMEThrust=104.5
ThrottleDown=843.333
ThrottleUp=1154.266
UseRMS=TRUE
UseKUBand=TRUE
UseSTBDMPM=FALSE
UseODS=FALSE
UseExtAL=TRUE
UseTAA=TRUE
AftTAA=TRUE
HasBulkheadFloodlights=TRUE
HasDragChute=TRUE
Bridgerails=0,1,2,3,4,6,8,10,11,12
SILTS=FALSE
LogSSMEData=FALSE
UseCISS=FALSE
CISS_GPrime=FALSE
UseASE_IUS=FALSE
ASE_IUS_AftLocation=FALSE
InternalPRSDTankSets=5
HasEDOKit=FALSE
EDOPallets=0

---------- Post added 07-27-19 at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was 07-26-19 at 10:49 PM ----------

Checked in an updated TAA mesh with the truss cradle hardware.

 

[GLS]

Checked in an updated TAA mesh with the truss cradle hardware.

Who knows when I'll get to it...:uhh:

 

[DaveS]

Pretty much all PLBD latches collide with the radiators... which one is wrong: latches or radiator gaps?
Also, the curved surfaces at the radiators fwd and aft ends don't match the inner and outer surfaces, which looks bad and wastes triangles.

Sorry for never answering this question but the latches should be at the correct locations, so it must be the gaps on the right-hand radiators.

 

[GLS]

Noticed this in the stoplights ticket: Any consensus reached on this? Having unreadable panels in the SSU orbiter is a pain.
What is the problem?

 

[DaveS]

Noticed this in the stoplights ticket: Any consensus reached on this? Having unreadable panels in the SSU orbiter is a pain.
What is the problem?

This is is the problem: https://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=591400#post591400

Edit:

Everything was fine until the change in how SSU used local lights to be in literal compliance with the OAPI, when it now turns out that Orbiter isn't in compliance with itself, at least not according to Martin's own post in the bug report.

 

[GLS]

This is is the problem: https://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=591400#post591400

Edit:

Everything was fine until the change in how SSU used local lights to be in literal compliance with the OAPI, when it now turns out that Orbiter isn't in compliance with itself, at least not according to Martin's own post in the bug report.

I see the light level in the vc changing with the PLB lights, but nothing close to saturation... :shrug:

 

[DaveS]

I see the light level in the vc changing with the PLB lights, but nothing close to saturation... :shrug:

Regular or D3D9Client? I'm using the latest D3D9Client for the Orbiter beta.

 

[GLS]

Regular or D3D9Client? I'm using the latest D3D9Client for the Orbiter beta.

D3D9

 

[DaveS]

D3D9

I'm using D3D9Client Beat 28.8 dated April 6 2019. My local lights are set to 8x Full.

 

[GLS]

The vertical structures in the PLB sill are positioned based on what? They are not where they should be for the slidewire supports...

 

[DaveS]

The vertical structures in the PLB sill are positioned based on what? They are not where they should be for the slidewire supports...

Mostly on the graphics in Vol. III of JSC-11174.

 

[GLS]

I'm using D3D9Client Beat 28.8 dated April 6 2019. My local lights are set to 8x Full.

Try 4x Full.

---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

Mostly on the graphics in Vol. III of JSC-11174.

But just eyeballing, right? I don't see any numbers, except for the ones used in holding the slidewires.
I guess I'll fix those, and leave the rest as is.

 

[DaveS]

Try 4x Full.

If I understand things right, that limits how many lights can be rendered at the same to just 4 when we have in reality 9 on the orbiters equipped with the forward bulkhead light. Also, I just ran a test, I confirmed my hypothesis, I tried turning on a 6th light, in this case the aft left flood flight and it had no effect. The 5 ones prior to that come on as expected but the 6th, no joy.

---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ----------

But just eyeballing, right? I don't see any numbers, except for the ones used in holding the slidewires.
I guess I'll fix those, and leave the rest as is.

I actually took a screenshot of the graphic on page 252 and used it as an reference image to line them up.

---------- Post added at 08:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------

So I have spent the day getting the SpaceHAB Single Research Module positioned correctly and while doing so, I encountered several positioning discrepancies with the TAA and External Airlock/ODS. Those have been fixed now (locally, haven't checked in anything yet) and noticed some differences between the early Mir units and the final ISS units.

One of the main differences concerns the transfer tunnel that connects the External Airlock with the rest of the orbiter, be it the TAA or the Xo576 bulkhead. For the early Mir units, the External Airlock made use of a very short, barely noticeable transfer tunnel, while the final ISS units made use of a longer transfer tunnel.

The other difference concerns the ODS. The early Mir unit that Atlantis flew with during her Shuttle/Mir missions had a longer vestibule (the cylindrical section below the main APDS), some 18" longer. It was also adorned with early Space Vision System (SVS) targets, these are the black dots you can see on the aft-most section of the two PLB electrical wire tray covers.

I could add two transfer tunnels to the External Airlock mesh and we only show the one that's appropriate for the position of the airlock. Not sure how to handle the different ODS units though.

 

[GLS]

So I have spent the day getting the SpaceHAB Single Research Module positioned correctly and while doing so, I encountered several positioning discrepancies with the TAA and External Airlock/ODS. Those have been fixed now (locally, haven't checked in anything yet) and noticed some differences between the early Mir units and the final ISS units.

One of the main differences concerns the transfer tunnel that connects the External Airlock with the rest of the orbiter, be it the TAA or the Xo576 bulkhead. For the early Mir units, the External Airlock made use of a very short, barely noticeable transfer tunnel, while the final ISS units made use of a longer transfer tunnel.

The other difference concerns the ODS. The early Mir unit that Atlantis flew with during her Shuttle/Mir missions had a longer vestibule (the cylindrical section below the main APDS), some 18" longer. It was also adorned with early Space Vision System (SVS) targets, these are the black dots you can see on the aft-most section of the two PLB electrical wire tray covers.

I could add two transfer tunnels to the External Airlock mesh and we only show the one that's appropriate for the position of the airlock. Not sure how to handle the different ODS units though.

Well, that can't go in the SSU 5.0 boat... there is already too much to do, and if we keep adding things we'll never release.

 

[DaveS]

Based on an old document, it seems like the airlock when flown in Bays 3/4 only used an 5.375" adapter section while the TAA made use of an 25.02" adapter extension.

It seems like the TAA flew with different adapter sections depending on if it flew in the forward position or the aft position. In the forward position, no forward adapter was required but it did have the 25.02" aft adapter. In the aft position it made use of special 14.375" adapters both forward and aft.

 

[GLS]

It took about 2 days but got the slidewires done!!! (except some small cosmetic details that will have to wait for another day)
As an illustration of the "power" of using the real coordinates: even with just 3 of the 4 axis that are used in the slidewire animation, it no longer collides with the PLBD handrails.

 

[GLS]

The zero values should be correct. What coordinates are you using for the aft compartment? Mine came from the latest Jenkins shuttle book, Vol II - Technical Description, page II-52. There it is listed as Xo1307 to Xo1463 at the top, Xo1307 to Xo1516 at the bottom. Height is listed as going to Zo500 at Xo1307 and Zo517 at Xo1463. The X-axis measurements does include the body flap hinge structure at the back as well as the Xo1307 bulkhead. The midbody only had the floor and sidewalls, the two bulkheads were part of the forward fuselage and aft compartment respectively.

Just looking at the Xo values, aft end of the aft compartment is some cms aft from where it should be (which leaves an even larger gap to the body flap)... :uhh:

---------- Post added at 09:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 PM ----------

The gap might be covered by correcting the fwd end of the body flap, which should be round immediately after the "large area", instead of being flap.

 

[DaveS]

[/COLOR]The gap might be covered by correcting the fwd end of the body flap, which should be round immediately after the "large area", instead of being flap.

Could you show where you mean on the body flap? Are you talking about where it connects to the hinge on the aft engine compartment? It does have that but it seems like it just too much buried in the hinge structure. If you want, I could attach a fixed body flap to this post.

 

[GLS]

Could you show where you mean on the body flap? Are you talking about where it connects to the hinge on the aft engine compartment? It does have that but it seems like it just too much buried in the hinge structure. If you want, I could attach a fixed body flap to this post.

It's the panels that cover the hinge structures. I already found the diameter of the circular section, and it pretty much closes the gap to the aft compartment.

The only thing missing is connection between the circular part with the main body flap part: I need to do some math to lineup some vertices, as it is tapered on the sides, just aft of the hinge. I should get it done over the weekend (+ the aft face of the aft compartment + bottom of tail).

---------- Post added at 12:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 AM ----------

So, for me to make the changes to the aft compartment, I'll need "control" over the FUSELAGE group... did you make any changes there?

 

[DaveS]

So, for me to make the changes to the aft compartment, I'll need "control" over the FUSELAGE group... did you make any changes there?

No, just the body flap. Was about a five-minute job really. I've attached it to this post just in case you want to look at it. It's in a better position now (further aft) as the round section should be partially visible.