SSU Development Thread (2.0 to 3.0)

[Donamy]

Simple, just make a window that is the same shape as the tracker, where it would meet the fuselage. Place it very slightly above the fuselage wall and make it transparent.

 

[DaveS]

Simple, just make a window that is the same shape as the tracker, where it would meet the fuselage. Place it very slightly above the fuselage wall and make it transparent.

The window being essentially a flat surface of the same shape as the cut-out?

 

[Donamy]

Bingo !!

 

[DaveS]

I have tried over and over and can't get the method to work. Do you think you could take a look?

 

[Donamy]

You have mail. That is one messed up model BTW. IMHO

 

[DaveS]

You have mail. That is one messed up model BTW. IMHO

In what ways? Is it the textures mapping?

 

[Donamy]

Too many too list.

 

[DaveS]

Too many too list.

In that case, I'm done. It's a failure.

 

[Donamy]

Then just go back to a previous release.

 

[DaveS]

Last stable is rev 1462.

 

[Donamy]

Great !! Go for release then ?

 

[DaveS]

Great !! Go for release then ?

After a serious code rewrite. That mesh is from March 2013.

 

[Donamy]

Is it the correct size ?

 

[Urwumpe]

We need a better versioning convention for the important meshes - it can't be true, that we are back in March 2013 with all progress lost because of this.

Like: Always change the meshes on a branch, always commit your work (at least daily) merge meshes back with the trunk as soon as all bugs in them are confirmed removed.

Should we go back to March 2013... we can at least start pushing for release. At least something good.

 

[DaveS]

Is it the correct size ?

Nearly. Vertical stabilizer is too tall and it has some problems with symmetry. I am willing to make a compromise: The FWD fuselage from 1462 which is good and everything else from the current WIP. That will get us all the fixes.

 

[Donamy]

This was all caused by nit picking. There was nothing wrong, with what we had from the first release. We should go back to that one. All the changes made by DaveS were, IMO, petty and not worth the thousands of extra polys. If you try to put it next to my ISS AtoZ, enjoy the slideshow, even with Dx9 client.

 

[Urwumpe]

This was all caused by nit picking. There was nothing wrong, with what we had from the first release. We should go back to that one. All the changes made by DaveS were, IMO, petty and not worth the thousands of extra polys. If you try to put it next to my ISS AtoZ, enjoy the slideshow, even with Dx9 client.

I am sure that passing blames or complaining about the ratio between quality and polygon count of meshes that will not be now, will not help us in the future. Sure, it is extremely disappointing to find out that we are mesh-wise back in 2013 again and a lot of work has not brought us any improvements at all.

We should learn all from what went wrong and make sure it does not happen again. Before anybody thinks of bashing DaveS for it, remember that there is a huge SSU team and a lot of thread guests, who did all have somehow tolerated the developing problems and all somehow hoped that things will get fixed eventually. Did not happen.

Sooo... How are we gonna do this? We need to get the old meshes included and maybe animation code fixed.

 

[Donamy]

I am sure that passing blames or complaining about the ratio between quality and polygon count of meshes that will not be now, will not help us in the future. Sure, it is extremely disappointing to find out that we are mesh-wise back in 2013 again and a lot of work has not brought us any improvements at all.

We should learn all from what went wrong and make sure it does not happen again. Before anybody thinks of bashing DaveS for it, remember that there is a huge SSU team and a lot of thread guests, who did all have somehow tolerated the developing problems and all somehow hoped that things will get fixed eventually. Did not happen.

Sooo... How are we gonna do this? We need to get the old meshes included and maybe animation code fixed.

I don't understand what you mean by "extremely disappointing"? That older mesh worked fine. You can't have an SSU team member just making changes on a whim, without a consesus, model or coding. There is a reason, people only use the Fleet, ... it works.

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't understand what you mean by "extremely disappointing"? That older mesh worked fine. You can't have an SSU team member just making changes on a whim, without a consesus, model or coding. There is a reason, people only use the Fleet, ... it works.

See - that's what I mean with the above.

We have a rule at work, that should also apply to SSU teamwork: "Concerns have to be stated in advance."

Its too easy to state concerns afterwards.

You are right - such personal changes should be avoided at all costs or be done locally and not checked into the main repository and the trunk. That's what really annoys me as well about it, but it happened, is done, has to get fixed and then prevented in the future.

 

[DaveS]

I don't understand what you mean by "extremely disappointing"? That older mesh worked fine. You can't have an SSU team member just making changes on a whim, without a consesus, model or coding. There is a reason, people only use the Fleet, ... it works.

Yes, there's a reason and that reason is that for now SSU is not stable and hard to get. We primarily operate through SourceForge in a raw source code environment.

This means that you have to get and maintain your own SSU environment using TortoiseSVN and VC++.

For 99.9% of everyone on O-F that translates into this quote from Armageddon: "that's not a choice, but a lack of options." which by default pushes them to Shuttle Fleet.

And it has very little to do with the meshes. We could be using the default Atlantis mesh and yet still have the same problem. It still comes back to the code status.