Project G42-200 StarLiner

[Moach]

and its worth noting that since WIP-302, the starliner is fully d3d9 compatible, so you really can't miss :thumbup:

 

[Cras]

Under Vista/7 I never got the great D3D9 boost others claimed to get, but D3D9 in Xp X64, my frame rate went through the roof, and when running things like Energia launchers, and ISS 3.2, then a frame rate boost is most welcome.

 

[Grover]

anything i can do to boost it under win7 x64?

 

[Cras]

Vistaboost is a pretty must run thing under 7 or Vista. Aside from that, I am not sure why I, or it appears yourself, don't get the massive boost in peformance under 7 that others seem to get.

 

[Fozzy]

Well I have my joystick and I pull the throttle to the max but it keeps not moving. Can you guys help me?

 

[jangofett287]

The current 'Official' Documentation:
http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=310366&postcount=942

 

[Fozzy]

The current 'Official' Documentation:
http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=310366&postcount=942

Thank you... time to turn on my FSX Skills!

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Rule 1 of problem solving: post the .log, the .scn, and the specs of your rig. then we can help you.

 

[Grover]

in that case: Rule 0 is read this thread for the same problem before you repost it for the 10th time

in other news, ive found that d3d9 is the way to go. i dont get the aforementioned 600FPS, but i get a steady 30 even in the 'pit. now time to test my rig by running the ISS v3.2 with the G42-203 (short for G42-200, WIP3) and see if the bird fits between those solars

and finally, are you sure the OMS engines deliver enough punch? i keep finding that every burn takes a matter of minutes, and orbit circularisation is a proper pain in the read with a low PeA, but we can always "cheat" and burn into our fuel supplies

 

[Cras]

On the OMS things, it certainly has the feel of the Shuttle's OMS. Does take a while significantly change the orbit. On one attempt to get her into orbit, my PeA was so low, I had no chance to keep the thing in orbit.

I have learned to really pitch that nose down when in the T3+ of the envelope to keep the Apogee down, and use that speed to get the perigee up.

 

[cymrych]

So, anybody have any ideas on how to add a payload to the bay and have the mass get added onto the ship? Short of using UCD, that is.:thumbup:

<Woot, post 100!!>

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Yeah, at the end of the .scn file for a vessel you want as the payload, add the following string (cut and paste it exactly as I have it) :
ATTACHED 0:0,G422
That will place it in the bay, about 2/3 of the way back. You may need to tweak the .cfg to align it with the bay, though.

 

[cymrych]

Yeah, got the attachment part no problem. But it doesn't appear to apply its mass to the vehicle.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

:blink: That's odd. Maybe we need to add a mass string like in velcro.
Moach really needs to write those users guides...

 

[cymrych]

Yep, caught me off guard as well. I finally realized what was happening (or not happening, as it were) when I accidentally added an extra zero to the payload mass, making it 100mT instead of 10 ... and the G flew as smoothly as in its empty configuration!

Well, I don't have a ton of experience with velcro. How/where would that string get written in? Sounds like it is a worthwhile quick experiment.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

How/where would that string get written in?

According to the Velcro Rockets PDF,

PAYLOAD probe probe probe 0 0 22.25 140000.0 0.0 1.0
This creates a payload, named probe, with a meshname of probe, and will create probe.cfg
when jettisoned. Put it at (0,0,22.25), make it mass 140,000 kg, and load it up with fuel (1.0).

Sounds like it is a worthwhile quick experiment.

:yes:

 

[Grover]

UCD will always give an accurate weight addition, since it is actually a vessel, and so its mass has to go somewhere (not the best wording, i know)

 

[Moach]

(...)
and finally, are you sure the OMS engines deliver enough punch? i keep finding that every burn takes a matter of minutes, and orbit circularisation is a proper pain in the read with a low PeA, but we can always "cheat" and burn into our fuel supplies

those OMS thrusters really don't pack a lot of heat - that's correct :hmm:
i may still crank them up a notch, but they're really not meant for hardcore business like raising perigees over hundreds of kms

for that, you can in fact use the main engines - it's not cheating - they're designed to light up any number of times while in orbit

just remember to properly antecipate your burns, since they do take something of a good 20 seconds to spool up before thrust


random flying tips:

the main fuel tanks can be filled with a non-irrelevant amount of extra fuel that you won't be able to burn without running out of oxy
the nominal load on those tanks is about 85% (add more depending on cargo) - you only need to fill them up all the way if you plan on spending some additional time in "airliner mode" (i.e. plane alignment, ATC clearance, etc...)

now, if by any chance you still have any oxidizer in your tanks after deorbit - you might wanna vent it before going in (albeit, you can save a buck or two by not doing so)

 

[cymrych]

UCD will always give an accurate weight addition, since it is actually a vessel, and so its mass has to go somewhere (not the best wording, i know)

Indeed. If I'm properly understanding how UCD works, it attaches itself at the primary ship's center of mass; ergo, any mass you add to it as payload will have the same inertial moments as if it were attached to the primary ship directly since the addition of mass at position x,y,z is the same wrt 0,0,0 in both cases.

[Experimental side-note, semi off-topic]: I was thinking maybe UCD was doing something wonky in its inertial computations, so I tried attaching the UCD to the attachment point in the bay itself. However, it seems that regardless of where exactly you place the UCD on the ship, it will assume a payload's MASS position of 0,0,0 to be at the SHIP's center of gravity. In other words, by attaching the UCD at the G's bay attachment point and a cargo then on the UCD at 0,0,0, you get the visual of the cargo in the bay, but the mass is added a the G42's center of gravity some 25m further aft. [End note]

Unfortunately, I believe we may have a design issue then. The G42 has tremendous lifting ability; I could fly her quite nicely with fairly ridiculous masses (several hundred mT) added at the center of gravity, albeit with extremely slow acceleration. But if UCD is accurate, even a small mass added to the bay may be enough to keep the nose stuck on the tarmac.

I hate, hate, hate to say it, since this project is so damned wicked awesome and a HUGE amount of fun ... but something seems amiss here. Better to look at it now, rather than 100 steps later in the dev process when modification and/or correction might not be an option.

 

[Moach]

well, i'll check into that - the canards may be in need of a revision as it's been so long since i last gave them any decent amount of attention :hmm:

but worth checking - did you go through the double-tap ritual to clear out the scenario load bug? - the canards animate and look as if extended - but really have no effect until you give the switch a jiggle - or just give the "n" key a quick double tap


it's notoriously difficult to bring the nose up without them, so it never hurts to confirm (just to isolate the causes)


the pitch trim, although not visually apparent, also plays an important part in torque-ing the nose off the runway - try bringing it all the way back before running off


anyways, there's a chance we'll need a simulated fly-by-wire device for setting the control surfaces response gain in accordance to vessel mass, etc...

well, we'll see