Project Here goes nothing: The Delta-StarLiner G42

[Eccentrus]

talking about disasters, would you simulate the spaceship's vulnerability, or it will be strong as hell like the old DG?

 

[fireballs619]

Moach, I suggest updating the first post with more recent pictures. Those early ones don't do the add-on justice, and might discourage them from following development. Anyway, the vessel is looking great!

 

[Moach]

good thinking... i'll go into that first post when i have some more, erm... "visible" news :thumbup:


anyways - just rigged up the engines a bit further, now she can make Mach 18... then down she came when the air ran overly thin and there were no orbital engines installed :rofl:


looking at the gauges as i barrelled down through a certainly doom-impounding hypersonic descent, i noticed that there's a tight relationship between indicated airspeed and the reentry heat - perhaps i have found the single value in which i should base my heating code? - need some advice there :idk:


of course, damage will be simulated - where's the fun if we dont? :lol: - i guess i can leave an option to turn on "All-Mighty Probe Mode" ("God Mode", in other more earthly games)

i was thinking - when disaster strikes, we cue in a loud "BRRRAAAHHRRKCCKKKKSHHFF" sound, delete our recently demolished vessel, then place the camera overviewing the earth, where you can take some time to reflect over what you just did :nono: - perhaps after a little delay, a window shows up with a sim-news page covering the aftermath of your demise (contents depending on the way it happened)... would be kinda of interesting, i guess... quite dramatic :hmm:


now i sleep...

 

[Usquanigo]

of course, damage will be simulated - where's the fun if we dont? :lol: - i guess i can leave an option to turn on "All-Mighty Probe Mode" ("God Mode", in other more earthly games)

i was thinking - when disaster strikes, we cue in a loud "BRRRAAAHHRRKCCKKKKSHHFF" sound, delete our recently demolished vessel, then place the camera overviewing the earth, where you can take some time to reflect over what you just did :nono: - perhaps after a little delay, a window shows up with a sim-news page covering the aftermath of your demise (contents depending on the way it happened)... would be kinda of interesting, i guess... quite dramatic :hmm:

 

[River Crab]

This just in:

 

[Ghostrider]

Shouldn't Garmin Winchester be the navigator? :lol:

Of course, and since he's the navigator and his name is Winchester, he rides shotgun. :thumbup:

 

[fireballs619]

:rofl:If you guys do that, this will possibly be the best add-on out there. Just have a few words change each time, and you'll be set!

 

[Moach]

:rofl: - yep, that pretty much describes how i spent my evening :lol: - that looks awesome! now, imagine that with a picture... we're on!

thanks for that - now we have a solid failure sequence in plans! :thumbup:

 

[Usquanigo]

:rofl: - yep, that pretty much describes how i spent my evening :lol: - that looks awesome! now, imagine that with a picture... we're on!

thanks for that - now we have a solid failure sequence in plans! :thumbup:

Solid indeed.

With a picture could be difficult. If only because you either need a pile of stock images, or a way to snap a pic right at the failure point, unless you just take them continuously, but that would be a system drag.

RC's choice of Kindle format was brilliant I think, because it avoids the need for a pic.

However.... that said, if you find a way for the pic to work and a format for it to fit in, that might be even better.

Maybe take a handful of standard failure categories, choose one based on what happened, turn the date and pilot name into variables to pull from the running scenario, and maybe even have a handful of random templates even within the category for a dynamic flavor (things like quotes and story side bars and such, which might be very difficult to generate randomly).

Would be a killer 'add on' (addition, what-have-you) to a killer add on. hehe

 

[Moach]

Maybe take a handful of standard failure categories, choose one based on what happened, turn the date and pilot name into variables to pull from the running scenario, and maybe even have a handful of random templates even within the category for a dynamic flavor (things like quotes and story side bars and such, which might be very difficult to generate randomly).

i had something like that in mind - if you think about it, there aren't so many possible combinations... specially for pictures... most plane-crash headlines don't really show the precise moment of the disaster, most show only the rescue efforts or whatever happened after the event itself...

composing a dynamic event text is pretty straightforward.... not many tricksthere.... choosing a picture could be done by looking up a preset based on a couple of flight parameters... nothing too special, really...

it's like, if the hull breaks from overheat - we can assume it was a reentry mishap, if you impact the ground just after takeoff, we call it a "failed launch", if you splat after coming back from some altitude, we can say it was a bad landing... add a few more of those simple scenarios, and whatever doesn't fit any can be treated as "causes are still being investigated"

feel free to add a few more easily detectable circumstances :thumbup:

 

[River Crab]

Maybe we're on to something?

Yeah, that article isn't really ideal from a gameplay standpoint, it just tells a story of how the testing is going, and how Regis 'Mach' Winters got his nickname.*
As any veteran military pilot can tell you (probably), you don't just get cool nicknames like in Top Gun. Quoting a guy I knew,
"The only way you'd get a nickname like 'Snowman' is if you slid off the runway in a snowstorm." :lol:
That also leaves us wondering: what the heck did Lee Nash do? :hmm:

*Besides, what do you expect from Bunbunmaru News? Objective reporting? :lol:

But I'll think of ways it could be feasible. I'll do one that has a logic to it.
As for pictures, I was thinking of a DGIV wreck, or a screenshot of some kind of rescue vessel...except, I don't know of any besides that little dinghy.
Kindle has greyscale pictures BTW (although I don't have one).

Wow, so off topic.



Anyway one little on-topic thing, are the countries from Mars Direct good?
I mean the 13 in this pic:

I'm thinking, keep those, but add Brazil and other Mercosul members (even if just for the monies), Ukraine, maybe PRC...or ROC...maybe not...let's all try to get along here...
And make the US flag MUCH smaller. And no NASA logo, no way.

UK and US are definitely in though, since they own Ascension Island AFB...which we absolutely need. Not to mention KSC!

 

[Moach]

yeah, i wasn't thinking of anything too specific, as far as the "crash news" would go... just different cases for launch, orbit, reentry and landing would already suffice... with a few more details in text, tho... but no full articles... i was thinking that just the headlines and section headers need be readable :hmm:


i like the many flags, it looks cool... as far as mercosul goes, most countries back here could not be realistically added to such a team... Brazil is pretty much the only South American country with a strong aerospace industry... perhaps Argentina could also join, but that's about it

and yep, no NASA logo, the G42 is not a NASA project - it's an international cooperation centered around NovaDyne Aerospace, a non-government (although mostly governments-funded) company which's nationality is left intentionally unspecified :thumbup:


i don't really have any progress news tho... i didn't get much home-rig time this weekend... perhaps later tonight

but - my "C++ for Windows" course just started (every saturday untill mid-October), and it seems it'll cover most stuff i still fumble about in Win32 programming, so i hope that helps make things run smoother from now on


later!

---------- Post added 08-02-10 at 12:29 AM ---------- Previous post was 08-01-10 at 07:33 PM ----------

right - minor update...

we... are... in ORBIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbup: :hail:!!!


i just managed to fly her a full ascent whilst simulating all four engine stages and the 3 in-flight transitions...
even using rought guesstimates, the fuel tanks ended up with about 5% of it's contents once i got it up there - with a proper launch timing, that's more than enough to get to the ISS :yes:


i did also notice that the indicated airspeed value bears increadibly tight relations with not only the hull heating effect, but most of the engine simulation's parameters (that REALLY matter, anyways)...

so i'm thinking - i may not really need the thrust maps anymore... not 2D maps, i mean... by using IAS, instead of Mach vs Altitude, i can determine the engines' efficiency ratings with a sample-interpolated curve, which reduces the amount of parameters from 256 to 16...

the functions i'm using are the exact same - since this would work exactly as what i have going now - but i can lose the second dimension from the lookup tables :hmm:


this will make the whole process a LOT easier, specially to debug and all... AND... it -could- work on MARS!


but for now - sleep is due, way overdue, i might add... :zzz:
so for now... just wait a bit, 'cuz i think the day after tomorrow (today... it's past midnight) is gonna be a tuesday!* :lol:


*no, we're not nearly ready - but i though you guys would like having another flyable version to play with, right?

 

[River Crab]

A NEW SPACEPLANE HAS APPEARED!
​

Also, did you say MARS?
Funny...I took her there a long time ago and never came around to posting the pics...
(How would Mars propulsion work, anyway? There's nothing to burn...NTR? :yes

 

[Eccentrus]

so the next beta is on tuesday? :woohoo:

I will gladly report on my flight tests, let there be luck for us all :hail:

 

[Jamesep3]

Sweet can't wait for this:yes:

 

[Moach]

to get it airborne on mars it would require severe engine adapatations... getting the engines to light up could be a challenge.... perhaps if fuel is used "backwards"... instead of carrying the combustibles, the ship carries the oxidyzer and burns methane from the atmosphere :lol:


hmm... there may not be enough density for lift there anyways.... perhaps mars isn't such a good idea after all :hmm: (i'm not saying we couldn't at least TRY )

and on second though.... engine efficiency could be better mapped directly to Mach numbers.... makes more sense, i guess... perhaps mach times density... dunno, still needs some work there


but as for now, she can at least fly , the engines aren't how i want them yet, but they work.... that's a good step, i think...


and this isn't really a beta release - by definition, in a beta you're just ironing out them pesky bugs... this is a WIP release, meaning we're not even feature-complete at the moment :thumbup:

---------- Post added 08-03-10 at 12:40 AM ---------- Previous post was 08-02-10 at 08:12 AM ----------

update, for whoever cares... :hello:


today i got the control surfaces moving... it was easier than i expected it, even with the complex rudder/airbrake/aileron/elevator combined motion... nothing some basic linear math couldn't fix...

and since the G42 has two sets of surfaces per wing (inboard and outboard) i also had them react differently to controls as to optimize the surfaces' responsiveness at their respective positions - and it looks really cool :thumbup:


then i started rigging up the scenario save/load process... by using a STL map structure and a string splitting function, i can avoid that nasty if/else construct that usually goes into this sort of thing... how do ppl ever manage to use C?... :lol:


looking good... i think...

in the end, i decided not to lose the 2d lookup tables... some google-images browsing brought up samples of RL engine flight-envelope tables, and my approach isn't really as far off as i though... altitude vs Mach seems to be the proper parameters to work with :hmm:



hopefully, if nothing goes BOOM, perhaps tomorrow night i can pack up another sneak-peek-release

 

[guitarist473]

hopefully, if nothing goes BOOM, perhaps tomorrow night i can pack up another sneak-peek-release

...AWESOME!!!! CANT WAIT!!!!
Everything in this project is looking amazing keep up the good work!

 

[Zachstar]

Someone better hide Marvin the Martian then. You know how he wants kabooms. :lol:

 

[GuiConteDGIV2X]

suggestion:i think it s better liquid boosters than solid ones because the solid fuel rocket you dont can cut off.

 

[River Crab]

suggestion:i think it s better liquid boosters than solid ones because the solid fuel rocket you dont can cut off.

Do you mean the DARTs from way back in this thread? Don't worry, if a DART assisted take-off were to fail, the G42 could fly to a safe altitude and then come around to land like an airplane. Worst case scenario, the DARTS would go BOOM and the crew bails out or ditches. If a problem is detected, they would be immediately jettisoned and self-destruct at a safe distance. But because this is more of a plane, it is just much, much safer than something like the STS, because it can actually fly. Besides, SRBs are certainly not RATO rockets, they're something else.