SSU Development thread (4.0 to 5.0) [DEVELOPMENT HALTED DUE TIME REQUIREMENTS!]

[GLS]

Missing files:

>>> Texture not found: SSU/PLB_monkeyfur.dds

! Cannot open Config\Vessels\107payloads.cfg
! Cannot open Meshes\107payload.msh
! Cannot open Scenarios\Space Shuttle Ultra\Historic missions\STS-31\1 STS-31 HST Launch.scn
! Cannot open Textures\SSU\PLB_monkeyfur.dds

 

[DaveS]

Missing files:

Taken care of in revision 2991.

 

[GLS]

the PLB sides don't fully meet with the aft bulkhead

This seems unchanged... it's just aft of the PLB cable trays and the vertical sidewalls, on both sides. Also, the CISS bottom panels don't fully cover their holes.

A few more issues:
1) ST "windows" (or whatever is the name of what makes those holes) aren't transparent
2) there is a small bump above the area between W1 and W2, and also W5 and W6... it seems like the VC is sticking out
3) NLG doors seem a bit sunk in
4) connection between right side wall and bottom of aft compartment could be tighter
5) some of the SSME hat-bands and eyelid shields are visible inside the nozzle
6) aft RCS holes not "3D"?
7) seams on the vertical tail not tight (just aft of texture transition from black to white
8) little gaps inboard of OMS pods/aft bulkhead when views from aft
9) small area of z-fighting on outboard of OMS pods/midbody side wall
10) forward RH end of RCC, and both wing chines seams not connected
11) object sitcking out of PLBDs forward segment (visible from sides)

 

[DaveS]

I have addressed 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11. 2 I can't do anything about as the VC is the same one we have had for a long time now which is ill-fitting. For 7, could you show exactly where on the the vertical stabilizer(s) you mean? There's plenty of black-to-white transitions.

 

[GLS]

I have addressed 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11. 2 I can't do anything about as the VC is the same one we have had for a long time now which is ill-fitting. For 7, could you show exactly where on the the vertical stabilizer(s) you mean? There's plenty of black-to-white transitions.

From the black in the leading edge to the white on the sides.
About the VC.msh, although that corner of the mesh is messy, IMO it is also fixable. One triangle is doing nothing, another is needed, but as it can't really be seen from any vc position could also be deleted (in this situation), and 2 others form the base of panels O5 and O9, but as that is gray, they could be moved in a bit without worry for texture mapping.
I can do this while you work the other meshes.

 

[Wolf]

From the black in the leading edge to the white on the sides.

Are you checking this with the deafault SSU textures? I can't see any seam issue in that area with my HI-RES ones

 

[DaveS]

From the black in the leading edge to the white on the sides.
About the VC.msh, although that corner of the mesh is messy, IMO it is also fixable. One triangle is doing nothing, another is needed, but as it can't really be seen from any vc position could also be deleted (in this situation), and 2 others form the base of panels O5 and O9, but as that is gray, they could be moved in a bit without worry for texture mapping.
I can do this while you work the other meshes.

Go head with the modification. I'd like to get back to the MLP as it's pretty complicated, so getting rid of its hidden triangles is going to take a while.

 

[GLS]

Are you checking this with the deafault SSU textures? I can't see any seam issue in that area with my HI-RES ones

Default textures in MOGE.

 

[GLS]

2 small issues that probably don't need tickets:
1) 4 isolated vertices below SILTS pod mesh, and it's messed up somehow as blender can't save it
2) spacehab mesh missing

I have a small sugestion regarding the forward fuselage area: wouldn't it be easier to make a smooth curved shape if it had vertices in axial planes? The edges between vertices would follow, e.g., the red lines in this crude drawing:

It would be like sliced bread, and the shape would be made by moving the vertices in and out, instead of forward and aft, which leaves some areas with little coverage. :2cents:

 

[Wolf]

Default textures in MOGE.

Since Dave said he “customized” the mesh for the hi-res textures wouldn’t it be better using those to check against glitches?..

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------

2 small issues that probably don't need tickets:
1) 4 isolated vertices below SILTS pod mesh, and it's messed up somehow as blender can't save it
2) spacehab mesh missing

I have a small sugestion regarding the forward fuselage area: wouldn't it be easier to make a smooth curved shape if it had vertices in axial planes? The edges between vertices would follow, e.g., the red lines in this crude drawing:

It would be like sliced bread, and the shape would be made by moving the vertices in and out, instead of forward and aft, which leaves some areas with little coverage. :2cents:

Would this solve also the nose cap seams issue?

 

[GLS]

Since Dave said he “customized” the mesh for the hi-res textures wouldn’t it be better to using those to check against glitches?..

This isn't a texture issue. It is simply the vertices at the end of edges not having the same coordinates.

---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------

Would this solve also the nose cap seams issue?

For 2 parts to connect well, they need to have the correct relationship between the number of vertices. E.g., you can't really connect a triangular tube with a square one (3 vertices vs 4). But if you have a tube with 4 and another with 8, you can put some of the vertices of the larger tube in the middle of the edges of the smaller one, thus achiving a smother transition without gaps.

Anyway, the nose cape seems fine to me... nothing jumped out as needing work there.

 

[Wolf]

Anyway, the nose cape seems fine to me... nothing jumped out as needing work there.

I mean this issue with the new seams I made



BTW with the new update there are 2 small bumps: 1 where the FRCS module merges with the nose (top nose section); the FRCS module overlaps the seal and part of the nose. And another one where the RCC "plate" merges with the belly tiles (lower nose section)

 

[GLS]

I mean this issue with the new seams I made
View attachment 16498


BTW with the new update there are 2 small bumps: 1 where the FRCS module merges with the nose (top nose section); the FRCS module overlaps the seal and part of the nose. And another one where the RCC "plate" merges with the belly tiles (lower nose section)
View attachment 16497

Yes, the NLG doors are a bit sunk in, and the FRCS fwd end doesn't connect with the fuselage. But overall, these issues seem to be wrong (u,v) coordinates and not (x,y,z).

---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ----------

I'm merging the trunk to the BETA branch and I'm seeing that the MLG deploy angle was changed from the correct 98º to 102º, and the NLG from 108º to 111º. I'm discarding these changes as, if all goes, well I'll merge the branch to the trunk afterwards, thus correcting them.

I'm also seeing that the positions of the OMS engines changed, yet again... I thought they were corrected for good back when the OMS TVC was corrected?

The c.g. was changed, but the comment next to it says it is sourced from the same document as the previous value... :uhh:

Also, the RMS_EE_VERN_TRANSLATION_SPEED const was changed to 0.61... where did it come from? I'm asking because it isn't a "round" number.

 

[DaveS]

2 small issues that probably don't need tickets:
1) 4 isolated vertices below SILTS pod mesh, and it's messed up somehow as blender can't save it
2) spacehab mesh missing

I have a small sugestion regarding the forward fuselage area: wouldn't it be easier to make a smooth curved shape if it had vertices in axial planes? The edges between vertices would follow, e.g., the red lines in this crude drawing:


It would be like sliced bread, and the shape would be made by moving the vertices in and out, instead of forward and aft, which leaves some areas with little coverage. :2cents:

That would entail what would essentially be a complete remodeling of the forward fuselage, something I'd rather not do at this point.

 

[GLS]

That would entail what would essentially be a complete remodeling of the forward fuselage, something I'd rather not do at this point.

Fair enough. It was just a suggestion and not something to be done now.

Merged the trunk to the branch (painful event), and I'll now merge the branch to the trunk, thus bringing to the trunk the new entry stuff. Although there is still work to do, I think the major changes are done.

 

[DaveS]

'm also seeing that the positions of the OMS engines changed, yet again... I thought they were corrected for good back when the OMS TVC was corrected?

The c.g. was changed, but the comment next to it says it is sourced from the same document as the previous value...

These changed but stayed the same as orbiter is now properly sized and matches the dimensions and shape in the OV-103 Recordation Drawing package. So in Orbiter coordinates, yes things changed, but in Shuttle Orbiter coordinates things are the same.

 

[GLS]

Merge done!
Now I need to rest...

These changed but stayed the same as orbiter is now properly sized and matches the dimensions and shape in the OV-103 Recordation Drawing package. So in Orbiter coordinates, yes things changed, but in Shuttle Orbiter coordinates things are the same.

OK, so the OrbiterCoordinates_SSU_Converter file should also be updated.

 

[DaveS]

And regarding the eyelids for the SSMEs and OMEs, I believe those should be added to their respective animations as they move with the engines, they're not static like the heat shields. This how the eyelids keep a tight seal between the engines and the heat shields.

---------- Post added at 09:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 PM ----------

Checked in a new Orbiter mesh that addresses the latest round of issues. Wolf: I fixed the nose cap mapping the best I could, it doesn't get any better than it is now. One thing that makes it worse is anti-aliasing which is very pronounced the thicker lines you use. So try to use the thinnest lines you can.

 

[GLS]

And regarding the eyelids for the SSMEs and OMEs, I believe those should be added to their respective animations as they move with the engines, they're not static like the heat shields. This how the eyelids keep a tight seal between the engines and the heat shields.

Yes, that was my idea.

 

[DaveS]

I've given the new aero stuff a few tries and everything seems to work pretty good, except for a few things. The Testing scenarios/KSC15 final approach scenario is an instant CTD on loading. Both EDW scenarios work great until Orbiter is supposed to transition the vehicle to a landed state when it CTDs. Nothing in log indicates any issues.