Space Shuttle Ultra 1.25 Revision B development

[DaveS]

Yes, could be the right time, but maybe have an option to control how many visual features it adds.

Well, there's not many visual features of the VAB that can be controlled. So far we only have the interior and the exterior to control.

 

[SiameseCat]

Has anyone confirmed that SSU works with Orbiter 2010? From a programming standpoint, I don't think there's much of a difference (until we start using the Sketchpad class).

 

[DaveS]

Has anyone confirmed that SSU works with Orbiter 2010? From a programming standpoint, I don't think there's much of a difference (until we start using the Sketchpad class).

Works nicely here, no CTDs. Seems the only major change from transition perspective is KSC.

 

[SiameseCat]

I'm planning to make the SubsystemDirector/Subsystem classes use templates, instead of being tied to the Atlantis class. This will make the Crawler development a lot easier, and it might be useful for some of the other vessels too.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm planning to make the SubsystemDirector/Subsystem classes use templates, instead of being tied to the Atlantis class. This will make the Crawler development a lot easier, and it might be useful for some of the other vessels too.

Same here. :lol:

 

[DaveS]

Works nicely here, no CTDs. Seems the only major change from transition perspective is KSC.

And this shouldn't be a problem, from a scenario perspective. The coordinates is pretty much the same, so all we need to do is adapt the new default Canaveral.cfg.

 

[Urwumpe]

And this shouldn't be a problem, from a scenario perspective. The coordinates is pretty much the same, so all we need to do is adapt the new default Canaveral.cfg.

Can sure be done. Maybe we can already permit some bigger tests by having either a Orbiter 2010 fork of SSU being developed in parallel to the 2006 development,or simpler: By having a special SSU2010 context for the scenarios that are based on the Orbiter 2010 Canaveral.

 

[SiameseCat]

I'm in the process of updating the Subsystem/SubsytemDirector classes to use templates. My plan is to modify the files in the libUltra folder, and include these in the Crawler project. For the moment, I'll leave the files used by the Atlantis project alone.

 

[Poscik]

When compiling MECOTool from sources, it shows that afxhh.h is missed. Where I can get it? Maybe I need MFC Framework SDK or something?

 

[Urwumpe]

When compiling MECOTool from sources, it shows that afxhh.h is missed. Where I can get it? Maybe I need MFC Framework SDK or something?

Yes, it is based on MFC... quick and dirty work by me.

 

[Poscik]

Could you upload it for me please? I can't find suitable SDK to compile MFC. I heard that it isn't available for VCExpress...

 

[DaveS]

Checked in updated Earth.cfg and SSU\Canaveral.cfg files, now adapted for Orbiter2010. No need to update the scenarios, they're still good.

Urwumpe: I guess now it's time to start working on the VAB while SC finishes up the C/T?

 

[Urwumpe]

Urwumpe: I guess now it's time to start working on the VAB while SC finishes up the C/T?

Yes.... but I currently have ADSL problems limiting my access to the internet, I hope to get things sorted out today.

 

[DaveS]

Yes.... but I currently have ADSL problems limiting my access to the internet, I hope to get things sorted out today.

How much work have been done so far? Any sigificant?

 

[Urwumpe]

How much work have been done so far? Any sigificant?

Nothing of use, since my PC was constantly overwhelmed by your meshes. Didn't even get to the animation test so far, only had some switches for testing which mesh kills the game.

 

[DaveS]

Nothing of use, since my PC was constantly overwhelmed by your meshes. Didn't even get to the animation test so far, only had some switches for testing which mesh kills the game.

OK. Just to do some checking: How are we going to simulate the transfer of the various elements from their storage places(SRM segments from either Surge 1 or Surge 2, the SRB FWD Skirt Assys from the low bay, the ET from the barge over to one of the vertical cells in H/B 2 or 4 and the orbiter from one of the OPFs)?

For the first 14 flights, the SRM segments were processed in either H/B 2 or 4 as the RPSF and Surges 1 and 2 weren't built until 1984.

 

[Urwumpe]

OK. Just to do some checking: How are we going to simulate the transfer of the various elements from their storage places(SRM segments from either Surge 1 or Surge 2, the SRB FWD Skirt Assys from the low bay, the ET from the barge over to one of the vertical cells in H/B 2 or 4 and the orbiter from one of the OPFs)?

I would say, by the right vehicles and cranes. Having the barge would be a must have then, if you want to simulate this.

For the start, we could just spawn the elements inside the VAB and transport them by cranes.

For the first 14 flights, the SRM segments were processed in either H/B 2 or 4 as the RPSF and Surges 1 and 2 weren't built until 1984.

No idea how this would affect us. I fear sometimes we put currently so much work into the ground handling, that the orbital world gets lost behind the cloud of dust that this kicks up. The Crawler is almost feeling as complex as the orbiter itself here, despite it sure being no rocket science.

 

[SiameseCat]

Any idea when we'll have a semi-working GPC simulation?

 

[Urwumpe]

Any idea when we'll have a semi-working GPC simulation?

Depends on which simulation model you mean. The AP-101S emulation is currently mostly for the fun of it, the SimpleGPC stuff can be made working in a rather short time, maybe three weeks.

The SimpleGPC stuff is purely C++ and native code, the AP-101S emulation would need also a large set of tools and source codes to be working. But I can already see the SimpleGPC concept getting to its limits soon, since we also need to structure the code for fitting into Orbiters timesteps, what would be no longer needed for the AP-101S emulation. And the emulation could also simpler be moved to multicore processors.

Coding also for different software versions and software distributions would also be simpler for the emulation.

So, the SimpleGPC should be primary as long as the emulation has no complete tool chain ready. Once it is possible to actually write complete software for the emulation, or convince NASA to give us the original software, the SimpleGPC could be made option and the emulation primary, since the emulation offers a lot of improvements for getting the exact behavior of the GPCs right.

Since both models would share the same I/O implementation (= connection of subsystems to the GPCs), this is currently my focus there... Poscik had stated interest to help there.

 

[Poscik]

I'm working on 3d telemetry representation for SSU. I finally can get data to another application via TCP, like this:

Data order is: altitude in meters, pitch, yaw, roll, all three axes in degrees... No I only have to write simple DX9 application which can represent current shuttle state It is little modified CRT MFD ;P And it sends data every 3 seconds. At the moment everything is hard-coded... but it's in test phase right now.