SSU Development Thread (2.0 to 3.0)

[Urwumpe]

I'm missing data on a few screens from the landing part of the flight:
Deorbit
CDR1
CDR2 AE PFD
CRT1 DEORB MNVR EXEC
CRT2 DEORB MNVR EXEC
CRT3 BFS GNC SYS SUMM 2
MFD1
MFD2
PLT1 AE PFD
PLT2 APU/HYD

Entry
CDR1
CDR2 AE PFD
CRT1 ENTRY TRAJ 1
CRT2 HORIZ SIT
CRT3 (BFS) ENTRY TRAJ
MFD1
MFD2
PLT1 AE PFD
PLT2 APU/HYD

TAEM
CDR1
CDR2 AE PFD
CRT1 HORIZ SIT
CRT2
CRT3
MFD1
MFD2 SPI
PLT1 AE PFD
PLT2 APU/HYD

You find them in the DPS Dictionary, or what do you miss in detail?

 

[GLS]

You find them in the DPS Dictionary, or what do you miss in detail?

Could you point me to the page in question? I can't find any MDU assignments there.

 

[Urwumpe]

Could you point me to the page in question? I can't find any MDU assignments there.

Ah, you mean the display configuration. That should be in the de-orbit preparation checklist. Give me a second...

 

[GLS]

Ah, you mean the display configuration. That should be in the de-orbit preparation checklist. Give me a second...

I checked an Entry Checklist and didn't get much...
It seems there was a degree of flexibility about the screens, and what was where was, in part, a crew preference, so it will be hard to have THE correct configuration.
I added some educated guesses in red... please complain :lol:.
Deorbit
CDR1 OMS/MPS
CDR2 AE PFD
CRT1 DEORB MNVR EXEC
CRT2 DEORB MNVR EXEC
CRT3 BFS GNC SYS SUMM 2
MFD1 SPI
MFD2 OMS/MPS
PLT1 AE PFD
PLT2 APU/HYD

Entry
CDR1 SPI
CDR2 AE PFD
CRT1 ENTRY TRAJ 1
CRT2 HORIZ SIT
CRT3 (BFS) ENTRY TRAJ
MFD1 APU/HYD
MFD2 SPI
PLT1 AE PFD
PLT2 APU/HYD

TAEM
CDR1 SPI
CDR2 AE PFD
CRT1 HORIZ SIT
CRT2 VERT SIT
CRT3 (BFS) VERT SIT
MFD1 APU/HYD
MFD2 SPI
PLT1 AE PFD
PLT2 APU/HYD

 

[GLS]

I think I've run out of things to do (for now) in the trunk. There's still some writing to be done on the manual, but I've run out of inspiration. I'm thinking about going to the ShuttleCentaur branch and get the CISS into the shuttle.

what is required to have addon dev. added below my name
as i have helped DaveS work on SSU textures and testing
just curious
i may just be considered a helper if so no worries
was an honor either way working with this great project
if this is the wrong place to inquire disregard my post
yall Take care

I think you have to talk to the forum personnel about your status here.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think I've run out of things to do (for now) in the trunk. There's still some writing to be done on the manual, but I've run out of inspiration. I'm thinking about going to the ShuttleCentaur branch and get the CISS into the shuttle.

Its OK. I also only plan testing SSU some more, but right now, the only thing that speaks against a release tomorrow is the unresolved question which version it will be. 2.1 like the current ticket milestone and which I prefer? Or 3.0, like you desire? What do the other developers think?

 

[DaveS]

Its OK. I also only plan testing SSU some more, but right now, the only thing that speaks against a release tomorrow is the unresolved question which version it will be. 2.1 like the current ticket milestone and which I prefer? Or 3.0, like you desire? What do the other developers think?

I think 2.5 is a better number for the version designation as I don't think this version is that much more advanced than the 2.0 version. The two biggest increments are the new Orbiter and the MPS implementation. The rest are mainly bug fixes.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think 2.5 is a better number for the version designation as I don't think this version is that much more advanced than the 2.0 version. The two biggest increments are the new Orbiter and the MPS implementation. The rest are mainly bug fixes.

Yeah. I also remember that my test yesterday had a 8 fps residual after OMS-2 (Despite proper trim angles), there is still work left, but I think it should better take place after release.

In my SemVer-influenced accounting, bugfixes would mean 2.0.1, Orbiter 2.1 ... but MPS is harder to estimate. a kick to 2.2 would be minimal there, but 3.0 would also be suitable. Also we have had some small additions else where, if I remember correctly.

Once the IUS and Centaur are included, we are definitely due for a major version step, the question is just: Will upper stages become 3.0 or will they already be 4.0? I think for balance, a 2.4 or 2.5 could then be the better choice.

One think I might improve this evening: Can somebody look for the correct transition DAP rates and deadbands? the current ones have very low rotation rates and its not possible to change them in GNC OPS1 (at least in SSU)

 

[GLS]

Its OK. I also only plan testing SSU some more, but right now, the only thing that speaks against a release tomorrow is the unresolved question which version it will be. 2.1 like the current ticket milestone and which I prefer? Or 3.0, like you desire? What do the other developers think?

So the 18th it is. We could release another nightly tomorrow and (if needed) another Saturday, and then Tuesday is the big day.

---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------

Yeah. I also remember that my test yesterday had a 8 fps residual after OMS-2 (Despite proper trim angles), there is still work left, but I think it should better take place after release.

In my SemVer-influenced accounting, bugfixes would mean 2.0.1, Orbiter 2.1 ... but MPS is harder to estimate. a kick to 2.2 would be minimal there, but 3.0 would also be suitable. Also we have had some small additions else where, if I remember correctly.

Once the IUS and Centaur are included, we are definitely due for a major version step, the question is just: Will upper stages become 3.0 or will they already be 4.0? I think for balance, a 2.4 or 2.5 could then be the better choice.

One think I might improve this evening: Can somebody look for the correct transition DAP rates and deadbands? the current ones have very low rotation rates and its not possible to change them in GNC OPS1 (at least in SSU)

I say 3.0 because the even if it was mainly bug fixes, they were many and over a long period of time. If next month Martin releases Orbiter 2015, and we decide to do a bug fix + 2015 upgrade + upper stages, I would probably call it 3.1. A 4.0 would be the mission editor and further work (dps update).

 

[Urwumpe]

So the 18th it is. We could release another nightly tomorrow and (if needed) another Saturday, and then Tuesday is the big day.

---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------



I say 3.0 because the even if it was mainly bug fixes, they were many and over a long period of time. If next month Martin releases Orbiter 2015, and we decide to do a bug fix + 2015 upgrade + upper stages, I would probably call it 3.1. A 4.0 would be the mission editor and further work (dps update).

Well, more important to me is: Are we still compatible to the previous version in terms of scenarios (and Current State.scn)?

If not, we need to go 3.0 anyway.

Also, we somehow ignore the large number of new DPS and MEDS display modes, which have not been included before... (shame on me). It must be a 3.0 then.

Same increment would happen with the 2015 release, since SSU would then no longer run on Orbiter 2010 (likely).

The mission editor would despite its effort be a minor change right now... we are not breaking compatibility to previous versions with it. At least in the current planning for it.

If we would get to a full flight plan functionality with it, it would be a major change of course, a previous version could not support this feature.

 

[GLS]

Well, more important to me is: Are we still compatible to the previous version in terms of scenarios (and Current State.scn)?

If not, we need to go 3.0 anyway.

Also, we somehow ignore the large number of new DPS and MEDS display modes, which have not been included before... (shame on me). It must be a 3.0 then.

Same increment would happen with the 2015 release, since SSU would then no longer run on Orbiter 2010 (likely).

The mission editor would despite its effort be a minor change right now... we are not breaking compatibility to previous versions with it. At least in the current planning for it.

If we would get to a full flight plan functionality with it, it would be a major change of course, a previous version could not support this feature.

Depends what you mean by compatible. Will it CTD? Probably not. But it not look good.
The mission editor would not break the scenarios, but as that would be a MAJOR improvement for the ability of the user to create/modify a scenario & mission file, I would call it a major version.

 

[Urwumpe]

Depends what you mean by compatible. Will it CTD? Probably not. But it not look good.
The mission editor would not break the scenarios, but as that would be a MAJOR improvement for the ability of the user to create/modify a scenario & mission file, I would call it a major version.

Well, very likely we will have a reason for a major version increment then anyway. :lol:

So, anybody objecting to call this already the 3.0? (which would also end this Dev thread after a very long time, almost 30 months)

 

[DaveS]

Let's just call it 3.0 and be done with it.

 

[Urwumpe]

DaveS: Can you still tell me where I can find the proper rotation rates of the transition DAP?

 

[DaveS]

DaveS: Can you still tell me where I can find the proper rotation rates of the transition DAP?

I'm afraid not.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm afraid not.

Well, then I know what I do in the evening. Making sure we can perform a OMS-1 maneuver.

 

[asdad]

Can you show me video tutorial of SSU Please ?

 

[asdad]

OMS Burn

I Can't get OMS 2 Burn , so please tell me how to get OMS 2 burns ?

 

[Urwumpe]

I Can't get OMS 2 Burn , so please tell me how to get OMS 2 burns ?

Did you manually proceed from OPS 104 to OPS 105 by entering "OPS 105 PRO" in the keyboard after ET separation?

 

[Urwumpe]

Can somebody confirm that the MEDS displays revert to DAP, when the VC position is changed?