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

[GLS]

No issues with the frame rate here (GeForce GTX 1070). Even with my older 970 particle streams were never an issue. You could try reducing the source rate (this is the rate at which the particles are created). As for the exhaust, I just thought it looked better without that old thing.

Not everyone has your GPUs. :dry: :compbash:
I'll play with particle streams when I finish the runway files. So are the exhaust textures to go for good? It is kinda drastic IMO, so it should be thought thru.

 

[Wolf]

All the official TAL sites were fully equipped and certified for shuttle landings. They wouldn't be designated TAL sites otherwise. Same for the nominal EOM sites (KSC, NOR, EDW and VBG). Most of the sites in the table are Contingency Landing Sites (CLS), the ECALs included.

These are not official shuttle landing sites and have no equipment or personnel to handle an orbiter. Their only qualifier is that they have a runway long enough to support and shuttle landing.

CLSs and ECALS had no personnel but I believe they had some equipment: MLS for sure and visual aids (OGS and IGS indicators as well as RWY xenon lights for night landings).
Otherwise how could the Shuttle be able to land there?

 

[DaveS]

CLSs and ECALS had no personnel but I believe they had some equipment: MLS for sure and visual aids (OGS and IGS indicators as well as RWY xenon lights for night landings).
Otherwise how could the Shuttle be able to land there?

Normal runway lights including PAPI and VASI. No shuttle-specific equipment at them at all. MSBLS is for the autoland guidance of the orbiter. MLS is regular manual navigation.

 

[Wolf]

Normal runway lights including PAPI and VASI. No shuttle-specific equipment at them at all. MSBLS is for the autoland guidance of the orbiter. MLS is regular manual navigation.

MLS is not part of Airports equipment, usually it's either ILS/VOR/NDB TACAN (for the military) or GPS for instrument approaches. Isn't MLS the system used by Shuttle (giving lateral and vertical navigation guidance which pilots could see on the HUD)? So how could they use MLS in those airports? Also aviation PAPI and VASI are 3 degrees (+/-). How could they fly the OGS (18-20 degrees glideslope) with that?

 

[DaveS]

MLS is not part of Airports equipment, usually it's either ILS/VOR/NDB TACAN (for the military) or GPS for instrument approaches. Isn't MLS the system used by Shuttle (giving lateral and vertical navigation guidance which pilots could see on the HUD)? So how could they use MLS in those airports? Also aviation PAPI and VASI are 3 degrees (+/-). How could they fly the OGS (18-20 degrees glideslope) with that?

PAPI/VASIs can be altered by airport personnel. KSC has the so called Landing Aid Control Building (LACB) by the 33 end of the SLF.

 

[Wolf]

PAPI/VASIs can be altered by airport personnel. KSC has the so called Landing Aid Control Building (LACB) by the 33 end of the SLF.

What about the MLS missing. I don't think a pure visual approach (even if in CAVOK conditions) could be safe or even doable with the orbiter

 

[DaveS]

What about the MLS missing. I don't think a pure visual approach (even if in CAVOK conditions) could be safe or even doable with the orbiter

AFAIK, MLS is a generic version of the STS-specific MSBLS co-developed by NASA, FAA and the US DoD (Microwave Scan Beam Landing System). MSBLS is much more accurate and operates on a different frequency than MLS (MSBLS is Ku band while MLS is S band).

 

[GLS]

I further decreased the performance hit of the RCS particle streams, but it still is on the heavy side.
The landing site table file thing is now implemented, and now we only need more runways to choose from... *walks in to digger, gets in and starts leveling another runway area*

 

[DaveS]

I further decreased the performance hit of the RCS particle streams, but it still is on the heavy side.

That is very strange as we used a particle stream for the RCS for a while now and only now there's a frame rate impact. Could something else be responsible?

 

[GLS]

That is very strange as we used a particle stream for the RCS for a while now and only now there's a frame rate impact. Could something else be responsible?

Yes, they are around for several years, they just weren't that "thick". If my calculations were correct, the number of particles on screen for a RCS firing was easily in the millions... :uhh:

 

[Wolf]

When firing the FWD RCS jets (+Z) the new particle stream penetrates the orbiter fuselage as if the jet nozzles were inside the orbiter hull....
Anyone noticed that aswell?

 

[DaveS]

When firing the FWD RCS jets (+Z) the new particle stream penetrates the orbiter fuselage as if the jet nozzles were inside the orbiter hull....
Anyone noticed that aswell?

The FRCS doesn't have any actual 3D nozzles like the ARCS jets. So due to the position of the AddParticleStream offsets being where they are, it looks like the streams are being generated inside the FRCS module.

 

[GLS]

DaveS, did you happen to make any more meshes for the EDW lakebed runways? If so, it would be good to commit them as I want to do the lakebed runways and using a mesh probably looks better than textures, like at White Sands. If not, then I'll make what's missing.

 

[DaveS]

DaveS, did you happen to make any more meshes for the EDW lakebed runways? If so, it would be good to commit them as I want to do the lakebed runways and using a mesh probably looks better than textures, like at White Sands. If not, then I'll make what's missing.

No new runways for EDW.

 

[GLS]

No new runways for EDW.

Ok, I'll make what is missing.
BTW: how did you make the numbers? Sculpting them seems a hard task...

 

[DaveS]

Ok, I'll make what is missing.
BTW: how did you make the numbers? Sculpting them seems a hard task...

I just used the text tool in AC3D, so it wasn't a difficult task at all.

 

[GLS]

I just used the text tool in AC3D, so it wasn't a difficult task at all.

OK, I'll see if blender has something similar.

 

[GLS]

Ok, so I'm making the markings for the Edwards lakebed runways at their current configuration, which means, e.g., our RWY23 markings won't match the ones when STS-1 landed there.
The only way around this would be having several Edwards base files (in different folders) each having a different version of the lakebed markings... but that would require correct knowledge of how it looked and when... :shrug:

 

[DaveS]

Ok, so I'm making the markings for the Edwards lakebed runways at their current configuration, which means, e.g., our RWY23 markings won't match the ones when STS-1 landed there.
The only way around this would be having several Edwards base files (in different folders) each having a different version of the lakebed markings... but that would require correct knowledge of how it looked and when... :shrug:

I think we should just stick with the current configuration as I don't think anyone will notice that they're off.

 

[GLS]

I think we should just stick with the current configuration as I don't think anyone will notice that they're off.

If one looks close enough, the previous markings are still visible: longer versions of the runways, old aim points, etc... :shrug:
Although runway 17/35 is currently unmarked, I'm adding it as it was used several times.
Currently only 2 runways remain to "paint", leveling the lakebed runways so the markings don't sink/rise, and the big one: making the numbers look +/- like the real ones, some of which look like they have been hit by a plane... :uhh: :lol: