Problem Canadarm2 SSU Scenarios

Nikogori

Donator
Donator
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
177
Reaction score
43
Points
43
Location
Osaka
Website
orbinautjp.github.io
I have downloaded latest SSU, ISS A to Z and Canadarm2 addon. SSRMS scenarios are included in SSU. However, SSRMS is not attached to anywhere in these scenarios.

iDaACDa.png


In the end, I managed to fix this. I have changed ATTACHED 0:0,Harmony to ATTACHED 1:0,Harmony and it works fine now.

zSauedV.png


Is there a problem in my SSU installation?
(I have no modding experience so far so I don't know why this works)
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,390
Reaction score
864
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
Is there a problem in my SSU installation?
(I have no modding experience so far so I don't know why this works)

The scenarios could be a bit old and outdated. Can you post the names (including folders) of the scenarios that have this bug?
 

DaveS

Space Shuttle Ultra Project co-developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,155
Reaction score
419
Points
173

Donamy

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
6,838
Reaction score
92
Points
123
Location
Cape
I see you're getting ready to recieve Dragon. :thumbup:
 

Donamy

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
6,838
Reaction score
92
Points
123
Location
Cape
This is the Hover position for dragon watching.

Code:
ARM_SET2 -57.100000 172.700000 -204.000000 157.900000 -112.700000 -7.700000 152.404531
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,390
Reaction score
864
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach

DaveS

Space Shuttle Ultra Project co-developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,155
Reaction score
419
Points
173
No reason to not file a ticket to fix the scenarios, especially if the fix is already known.

Didn't we also have a STS-100-mission scenario folder about its delivery to the ISS? If not, we should include it into the possible features for the following version.
AFAIK, we never had a STS-100 scenario. Besides, SSRMSD is really separate from SSU.
 

DaveS

Space Shuttle Ultra Project co-developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,155
Reaction score
419
Points
173
No part of SSU, but deployed with SSU? Heresy!
AFAIK, it can be launched by any compatible launcher given that this is just the SSRMS itself. The Spacelab Logistics Pallet (SLP) is separate from the SSRMS. So as long as a proper SLP is supplied it can be launched by the Shuttle Fleet. It's the same with the Crawler, it doesn't care about the MLP as long it supplies a compatible attachment point.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,390
Reaction score
864
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
AFAIK, it can be launched by any compatible launcher given that this is just the SSRMS itself. The Spacelab Logistics Pallet (SLP) is separate from the SSRMS. So as long as a proper SLP is supplied it can be launched by the Shuttle Fleet. It's the same with the Crawler, it doesn't care about the MLP as long it supplies a compatible attachment point.

Yes, but thats not really the question. We could deploy the Crawler independent of SSU, just like we could deploy SSRMS independent. But we are still responsible for the add-on and at least need some sort of process for maintaining and deploying it (software-wise).

We could kick it further out of SSU (not releasing it together with SSU) or we could move it closer into SSU. I am more for the latter, because such kind of projects are where our development time went into and we should showcase it.
 

DaveS

Space Shuttle Ultra Project co-developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,155
Reaction score
419
Points
173
Yes, but thats not really the question. We could deploy the Crawler independent of SSU, just like we could deploy SSRMS independent. But we are still responsible for the add-on and at least need some sort of process for maintaining and deploying it (software-wise).

We could kick it further out of SSU (not releasing it together with SSU) or we could move it closer into SSU. I am more for the latter, because such kind of projects are where our development time went into and we should showcase it.
Well, the SSRMS is already an independent add-on: http://www.orbithangar.com/search_quick.php?text=SSRMS&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
 

DaveS

Space Shuttle Ultra Project co-developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,155
Reaction score
419
Points
173
No problem. But if its part of the SSU development, we should also include it into the default distribution. Maybe we can also make a "no extras" distribution of SSU in the future.
The only two "extras" that SSU makes us of is OrbiterSound 4.0 and Usonian's Vandenberg AFB 2006. We already have Usonian's permission to fully include it with our release pack. OS 4.0 is fully optional, not having it won't make Orbiter CTD upon loading the SSU scenarios.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,390
Reaction score
864
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
The only two "extras" that SSU makes us of is OrbiterSound 4.0 and Usonian's Vandenberg AFB 2006. We already have Usonian's permission to fully include it with our release pack. OS 4.0 is fully optional, not having it won't make Orbiter CTD upon loading the SSU scenarios.

Thats no extras like I meant, those are external dependencies and if we can include the VAFB... did we also get permission for derived works?

extras like I mean: Software components, that we developed ourselves, but which are not necessary for playing SSU in a minimal functionality sense (The spine of the add-on). The crawler for example is not needed for a launch campaign, but allows to play the pre-launch-campaign scenarios.

VAFB would also not be needed for a minimal SSU, if its included, it would be an extra as well.
 
Last edited:

DaveS

Space Shuttle Ultra Project co-developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,155
Reaction score
419
Points
173
Thats no extras like I meant, those are external dependencies and if we can include the VAFB... did we also get permission for derived works?
There's no derived works. The only thing changed is replacing Usonian's static SLC-6 (all of the SLCs are built from standard static surface base objects) with ours.

extras like I mean: Software components, that we developed ourselves, but which are not necessary for playing SSU in a minimal functionality sense (The spine of the add-on). The crawler for example is not needed for a launch campaign, but allows to play the pre-launch-campaign scenarios.
Well, I guess the SSRMS and Crawler are pretty much it, unless you have some plans for the VAB.

VAFB would also not be needed for a minimal SSU, if its included, it would be an extra as well.
Well, if we do include it in our release pack, it wouldn't be a requirement anymore. Not any more than SSU itself.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,390
Reaction score
864
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
There's no derived works. The only thing changed is replacing Usonian's static SLC-6 (all of the SLCs are built from standard static surface base objects) with ours.

I meant are we explicitly permitted by Usonian to also modify his add-on, when we distribute it by including it in SSU? That's important legalese. It also means we can replace parts of the add-on during development (like by your SLC-6) without betraying the intents of Usonian.

Well, I guess the SSRMS and Crawler are pretty much it, unless you have some plans for the VAB.

Well, I still have such plans, I am sure, you also have them. But we need to be realistic about our possibilities what we can develop in reasonable time between two releases.

Well, if we do include it in our release pack, it wouldn't be a requirement anymore. Not any more than SSU itself.

Yes, but then, if we wouldn't have VAFB scenarios, we wouldn't need it in a SSU release - we have some lot of options in our release strategy there. From releasing a big huge distribution to releasing a smaller one with limited scenarios.
 
Last edited:

DaveS

Space Shuttle Ultra Project co-developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,155
Reaction score
419
Points
173
I meant are we explicitly permitted by Usonian to also modify his add-on when we distribute it by including it in SSU. That's important legalese.
Yes, he made a big point about that his Vandenberg AFB add-on was really meant as a base pack similar to SC3, something for others to build on. That's why all the SLCs are static. Usonian himself added SLC-4E and SLC-4W for the two Titans (II and IV).

Yes, but then, if we wouldn't have VAFB scenarios, we wouldn't need it in a SSU release - we have some lot of options in our release strategy there. From releasing a big huge distribution to releasing a smaller one with limited scenarios.
Well, we could go the SC3/MS2 route, essentially making SSU an "Shuttle Development Kit" (SDK). That would tie nicely into our plans for the Mission Creator/Editor.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,390
Reaction score
864
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
Yes, he made a big point about that his Vandenberg AFB add-on was really meant as a base pack similar to SC3, something for others to build on. That's why all the SLCs are static. Usonian himself added SLC-4E and SLC-4W for the two Titans (II and IV).

OK, so everything is fine there. :)

Well, we could go the SC3/MS2 route, essentially making SSU an "Shuttle Development Kit" (SDK). That would tie nicely into our plans for the Mission Creator/Editor.

Exactly thats what its meant for. And we could also easier focus on identifying components of SSU that can be made independent modules and used for other "Ultra"-style add-ons. Which is also good for quality assurance.
 
Top