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

[GLS]

VC panels can now have more than one click area! (in the VC branch)
As a "proof-of-concept" I added 2 new areas to panel F6: (1) one for the MDUs, which now are in the correct plane so now there is not problem using the CDR MDUs from oblique angles, and (2) another for the CDR HUD, which previously had its switches on panel F2.

I'll keep working on adding new click areas where they are needed (front panels should be it for now).

 

[Urwumpe]

Urwumpe hopefully will pardon me, I am now going even further out of topic but I don't know if this deserves a separate thread so I'll post it here

Don't worry about my wrath. I am on parental leave right now and have four cute kittes around me. You could tell me that you wrecked my car, I couldn't go berserk anymore. :rofl:

 

[DaveS]

Donamy: I just wanted to let you know that I have sorted out the mapping issues and if you want, you can discontinue your efforts. Still need a set of OMS pods though that fits the aft engine compartment: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sfsm8ovty91l9ez/SSU_New_Columbia_mapping_corrected.jpg?dl=0

 

[Donamy]

Are you going to fix the number of tiles and the angles ?

 

[DaveS]

Are you going to fix the number of tiles and the angles ?

Done: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sfsm8ovty91l9ez/SSU_New_Columbia_mapping_corrected.jpg?dl=0

 

[Donamy]

Much better, but try not to look too uniform, no 2 tiles are alike,I've heard.

 

[DaveS]

Much better, but try not to look too uniform, no 2 tiles are alike,I've heard.

That refers the general contour of the tile. This is to ensure an overall smooth surface (although, Columbia did have a very rough surface when it came to the wings) when all of the TPS are in place. Look directly at a tile's coated side, the tiles look identical. Some tiles do have a different shape though in order to make all of the TPS fit, good example is where the midbody meets the forward fuselage, there's a sharp difference between the straight tiles of the midbody and the angled tiles of the forward fuselage. This is even true of the later orbiters which uses blankets instead of tiles, they still follow the same pattern.

 

[Wolf]

Question regarding SSU5.0: would it be possible to get a new belly like this?


that's a belly made for the Fleet (mesh kindly provided by Donamy). This way we can draw an uneven and asymmetric pattern of the new (replaced) black tiles as well as the scortching effects, hence a more realistic and nice looking belly.

 

[Donamy]

Looks pretty good, but would need more random 'staining' with less pattern. IMO

 

[DaveS]

Question regarding SSU5.0: would it be possible to get a new belly like this?
View attachment 15250

that's a belly made for the Fleet (mesh kindly provided by Donamy). This way we can draw an uneven and asymmetric pattern of the new (replaced) black tiles as well as the scortching effects, hence a more realistic and nice looking belly.

It's possible, but we would need a new texture for it as ours uses the same for both the left and right sides (they're identical mirror images of each other). I could easily separate the underbody into its own mesh if I just had the texture.

 

[Donamy]

Like this ?

 

[DaveS]

Like this ?

Yes, that will work. Could you bake the SODB bottom tile schematic into it to bring out the tile gaps a bit more? It could also be used to create the undisturbed tiles for the first-flight textures.

I have completed the midbody TPS for the new original Columbia texture: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6odt0skgq3c7ne5/SSU_New_Columbia_1.jpg?dl=0

 

[Donamy]

Looking better, but try toning down the lines a bit on the doors, they seem to prominent.

What is the SODB schematic ?

 

[Urwumpe]

Looking better, but try toning down the lines a bit on the doors, they seem to prominent.

What is the SODB schematic ?

Shuttle Operational Data Book I suspect.

 

[DaveS]

Shuttle Operational Data Book I suspect.

Yes, I was thinking of this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/21ku5ih1wffwyfu/2-5b.pdf?dl=0

 

[Donamy]

kinda like this ?

 

[GLS]

As mesh work is being done, don't forget about this.

 

[DaveS]

kinda like this ?

Yes. Could you dial back the schematic visibility a bit? I'd suggest about 25% what it is there.

---------- Post added at 11:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 PM ----------

On and off, I've been looking at the Crawler's touchdown points and... I give up. :facepalm:
I got it to "behave" at normal time acceleration, but once I go to 10x, it either sinks and/or it shoots into another galaxy. When it sinks, returning to 1x makes it start to emerge slowly.
I didn't even got to the point of it dealing with a few thousands of tons on top of it, or get it to drive. :shrug:

Is this with our propulsion system or fred18's? I think we determined in the Crawler thread that our system was a NO-GO and needed to be replaced. The agreed to solution was to replace it with fred18's Crawler system that he has implemented in MS2015 which do work very nicely in Orbiter 2016.

Before I go and bother fred18 about this, I just wanted a answer on the above question which I never got (missed maybe?).

 

[GLS]

Like I said in my post, I didn't even get to the point of getting it to move, so I never looked at anybody else's code.

 

[DaveS]

Like I said in my post, I didn't even get to the point of getting it to move, so I never looked at anybody else's code.

You should. We have since determined that our code which originates from the old NASSP 4.0 Crawler (check the cpp and h files, you'll find the notes from its NASSP days there). It's was originally made for Orbiter 2005 so I'm not surprised that it has finally given way. fred18's MS2015 crawler is very stable both in 2010 and 2016, it just doesn't have the correct behavior.