Request Russian Lunar Lander

[4throck]

Yes. I did the textures, and then "carved" some meshes around the images.
I could split the meshes into buttons if needed. Nevertheless, there might be problems in mesh export, organization, etc, etc. But certainly doable.
At least the 2D textures are usable. I'd prefer a 2D panel for button pushing, along with a 3D VC just for show and looking out the window. But that's a personal preference.

 

[Columbia42]

Although my project is currently on indefinite hold, if the OP is looking for an addon of the LK Russian lander, I have a reasonably functional spacecraft3 implementation of that alone which could be made available. It even has a 3D VC (but no panels, and not functional).

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes. I did the textures, and then "carved" some meshes around the images.
I could split the meshes into buttons if needed. Nevertheless, there might be problems in mesh export, organization, etc, etc. But certainly doable.
At least the 2D textures are usable. I'd prefer a 2D panel for button pushing, along with a 3D VC just for show and looking out the window. But that's a personal preference.

Not for me. I just started learning Blender well enough to make my own "engineering model"... can only take years. I am a better coder than a mesher.

EDIT: Also I think properly designed VCs are superior to 2D panels in terms of usability. Compare for example NASSP and SSU. The large 2D panels of NASSP need longer to monitor and to find a switch, than in SSU, where the spatial distribution assists you. A VC for NASSP would be an epic improvement...

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

EDIT: Also I think properly designed VCs are superior to 2D panels in terms of usability. Compare for example NASSP and SSU. The large 2D panels of NASSP need longer to monitor and to find a switch, than in SSU, where the spatial distribution assists you. A VC for NASSP would be an epic improvement...

True, and Ive always felt that the best add-ons fall flat without a VC. What really hooked me when I first started using Orbiter was spacecraft with really good cockpits, like the DeltaGlider, Arrow Freighter, & Bullet (sadly based on a bad dll.)

Immersion means a lot to an add-on :thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

True, and Ive always felt that the best add-ons fall flat without a VC. What really hooked me when I first started using Orbiter was spacecraft with really good cockpits, like the DeltaGlider, Arrow Freighter, & Bullet (sadly based on a bad dll.)

Immersion means a lot to an add-on :thumbup:

Yeah...well, in SSU true immersion would also mean that we have the many many many checklists, cue cards, headphone units, video converters and kitchen timers velcroed around the VC. Not impossible, but currently beyond our resources.

 

[4throck]

Although my project is currently on indefinite hold, if the OP is looking for an addon of the LK Russian lander, I have a reasonably functional spacecraft3 implementation of that alone which could be made available. It even has a 3D VC (but no panels, and not functional).

I'd welcome that. Simply host it somewhere and post a link on the development thread. Someone might even improve upon it and, since it is SC3 based, post new config files, etc, etc. I've seen cool stuff appear that way.

---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------

...Also I think properly designed VCs are superior to 2D panels in terms of usability. ...

Well, for text to be readable on a VC, you need to have a camera FOV of about 20º. This on a 1366x768 monitor. So you need to change both the viewing direction and the zoom to find what you want.

A good 2D panel also needs to be designed to fit the PC screen, otherwise the same will happen (screen scrolling, small text, etc).

But i think that we all agree that the important thing for immersion is the have some kind of functional panel, 2D or 3D.