Idea Mercury and Gemini add-on improvements

[Urwumpe]

Urwumpe, would you be interested in adding the verniers to the Atlas for Mercury and perhaps some additional pad smoke to pads 14 & 19?

Smoke and pad animations would be possible, making the Mercury-Atlas use the Verniers would be hard, as the Mercury code is pretty resistant to modifications.

 

[Star Voyager]

Good morning gentlemen,
For Mr. Saturn V, sorry for getting off topic. I thought while we were on the subject of Atlas what the heck.
For Mr. Urwumpe, if you jettison the Atlas escape tower, then launch, verniers should show up, but they are slightly off. There is another exhaust prblem there, too. I found this out while trying to simulate a Big Joe flight. Just a piece of valuable info...

 

[Star Voyager]

For Mr. Saturn V, could you possibly announce a projected release date please, if that's possible right now?

 

[Star Voyager]

I've been experimenting with the Redstone launch heading and noticed that 112 was a little off. 100 degrees was VERY close, but 105 seems to be on target. Any one else with an idea?

---------- Post added at 09:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 PM ----------

Also, concerning the Redstone, if it can be changed, is it possible to replace the current exhaust with an SSME texture? That would make it a lot more accurate...

 

[Saturn V]

For Mr. Saturn V, could you possibly announce a projected release date please, if that's possible right now?

I work on these things as time permits (some nights a few hours, others a few minutes). I have a full time job and a large family to support, so leisure time is at a premium for me. But in keeping with Orbiter tradition, it will probably be on a Tuesday...

 

[Star Voyager]

Sorry, I didn't know... but I appreciate the joke :lol:!

---------- Post added 06-27-2009 at 12:51 PM ---------- Previous post was 06-26-2009 at 10:05 PM ----------

While we are on the subject of improvements and requests, why not throw in some fiction, like the Mercury lab, or the Mercury Jupiter (see links 1 and 2)? And also, some fictional Gemini, like Gemini Paraglider, or the winged Gemini (see links 3 and 4)?

http://www.astronautix.com/flights/merr2mj2.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/a/atdmercl.jpg

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemlider.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/winemini.htm

 

[Saturn V]

Question: Regarding detail, how much is TOO much? Do most of us run equipment able to handle extremely detailed models? The reworked Complex 14 is already a substantially heavy model. The details shown below are of the blockhouse...

The area in red indicates the position of the exterior stairs and guardrails to the observation platforms which are clearly visible in photos. Given that each step would further increase the poly count, is it worth having that much detail?

Or would something simpler (as shown in the image below) be satisfactory?

 

[Star Voyager]

Mr. Saturn V, is this a high poly count?

 

[Saturn V]

Mr. Saturn V, is this a high poly count?

Uh...yeah...

Question: Regarding detail, how much is TOO much? Do most of us run equipment able to handle extremely detailed models? The reworked Complex 14 is already a substantially heavy model. The details shown below are of the blockhouse...

The area in red indicates the position of the exterior stairs and guardrails to the observation platforms which are clearly visible in photos. Given that each step would further increase the poly count, is it worth having that much detail?

Or would something simpler (as shown in the image below) be satisfactory?

 

[Star Voyager]

Oh...I have a Compaq with Vista Home Premium. I got VistaBoost, which makes little difference. My FPS goes down to 5 or 6 when Mercury-Atlas is on one of Mr. Kev33's pads. However, I installed LC-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 5 on Earth 1962. That is my 1962 Cape Canaveral. I have a feeling the FPS will be in the negatives on my computer with the update. Is there any work on the actual rocket's and capsules?

 

[MJR]

Whats your RAM and graphics card?

 

[Star Voyager]

Graphics:
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950.

I forgot what RAM is, but, the memory is 2048 MB and the hard drive is 320 GB. Processor is E2160. Does this make sense?

 

[MJR]

You got 2 Gigs of RAM. That's what memory basically is. What the Ghz of the processor?

 

[Star Voyager]

For processor, all I see is E2160 and it's an Intel Pentium Dual-Core. Is 2 gigs of RAM good?

---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 PM ----------

2160 @ 1.80 GHz

 

[MJR]

Its decent. I'm supposed to be getting an 8 GB.

 

[Star Voyager]

I hope my computer can support it (which I doubt).

---------- Post added at 03:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ----------

Like I said, I hope there's actual improvement on the spacecraft, not just textures.

 

[MJR]

Run it in full screen if you do because it increases your FPS.

 

[Star Voyager]

I thought I was in full screen. On Orbiter?

 

[Saturn V]

My experience with Vista is that you need a minimum of 2 gigs RAM to run Vista smoothly. Upwards of 4 gigs is optimum so you can run a decent video card. Your "onboard" Intel accerator is basic and probably is not the best choice for running high intensity graphics.

You also mentioned available improvements to the Mercury spacecraft and Atlas booster...go back to the begining of this thread and look for the items 4throck posted. They're texture upgrades and your FPS shouldn't take as big a hit as it's likely to with the pad models.

Which brings me back to the original question: is the added detail worth it? Are most of us NOT able to run high-poly models?

 

[Star Voyager]

I say that textures are not enough of an upgrade. I also meant Mercury AND Gemini, along with the launch vehicles. They seem outdated on the inside. And about the pads, I would suggest toning down a bit. Or better yet, you could release 2 versions: one that is toned down and the one that you put the details into. That makes perfect sense to me anyway because it seems fair.