Project Underwater spaceport?

[_Designer_]

Hey all!

I was thinking of this project, it was influenced by yellow-squadron from ace combat 4, the space launcher from ace combat 5 and the underwater mako reactor in Junon from Final Fantasy 7 along with the DG/XR2 launcher.

I was thinking about creating an underwater spaceport in Blender for Orbiter. I learned how to create ocean water already in blender, now I need to learn how to animate it and make the space port around it.

The launch will maybe have either an elevated runway or launcher and the tunnel around the runway will be transparent to view the ocean. My only problem is, where is the spacecraft going to land?

Has anyone ever thought about something as creative as this? This project I might need help on because I am so new and I do not know how to use Blender that well nor ever built a spaceport before. I got the tutorials but without anim8tor I don't think I can successfully pull it off right.

 

[N_Molson]

:yes:

An underwater spacebace could push the concept forward. :hmm:

I fear that Orbiter doesn't feature oceans or topography, however.

 

[PeriapsisPrograde]

spacebace ...

KILL THE MEME! :lol:

 

[_Designer_]

Couldn't the code be re-written to optimize it? if we could add aircraft carriers than why not animate an ocean.

 

[dumbo2007]

Hey,

Neat idea. I am interested in helping with this. Are you thinking of something like this ?

https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1PCCOysrVWzMikcPJHW72JA1ZXsVF7V5Iu6HQ6BBvkXg/edit?hl=en_GB

 

[MaverickSawyer]

KILL THE MEME! :lol:

Agreed. :chainsaw:
On topic, though, this will prove interesting to watch being developed.

 

[dumbo2007]

And the water may be possible by changing the vertices of a polygonal mesh in each time step.

 

[Jarvitä]

Unfortunately, all orbiter baces are restricted to the serface of planetary/lunar bodies.

 

[PeriapsisPrograde]

Unfortunately, all orbiter baces are restricted to the serface of planetary/lunar bodies.

We're discussing a base on a surface, though.

KILL THE MEME! :lol: :yes:

 

[GigaG]

Will all your bace you make belong to us...:lol:

BTW, what if someone changed orbiter so bodies didn't have to be round and could have water? Then, the bace could be on the serface of the ocean floor. Also, what about Prelude Bace with the DGIV and UMMUs? And what about Phobos? It is not round, either - but it is a body. However, touchdown on it is a pain in the rear end. I think it coded to be round, but graphically made to appear to have an irregular serface. What about Celestia? If we merged Orbiter with Celestia...



Let's make this bace!

 

[Spacethingy]

I tried that idea, didn't take off, if you'll excuse the pun.
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=19021

How about an Orulex/Meshland solution?

The meme thing is bace derailment of this thread.

 

[Scruce]

I fear that Orbiter doesn't feature oceans or topography, however.

The way to go about doing this is to use a system similar to the one that exists in Google Earth.

There would be three sections:

1) Above water part; an aircraft or whatever flying around will be able to see section two as it would see the normal blue sea in Orbiter.

Section One:

2) The sea level sphere; this would be a moving water simulation using two moving textures going in opposite directions, similar to one seen in this feature request.

3) Under the sea; where new physics are defined, (buoyancy, floating etc.) this would pave the way for addons such as tracking submarines, divers (for AMSO) etc.

Section Three:

 

[Grover]

thats alot of work, and think about how you would define the edges of the "underwater" bit:

the rule is: the Ground is ALWAYS 0 alt, drawn from a single radius from the planet/moons centre, so you would have to elevate your "sea level" to actually be at about 1km alt, so you are no longer working to a spherical planet

then your edges would need to be tapered down, unless you planned to make the entire planet a nice underwater section

as for changing physics, anything is possible through the power of C++, but it just gets VERY hard once you start thinking outside the box (in this case, the API), but you should be able to redefine some basic physics, though you may have to re-write (at least part) the earth.dll control

 

[dumbo2007]

though you may have to re-write (at least part) the earth.dll control

Is the source for earth.dll available ?

Well in the beginning, the base can be simulated in a small area. This area can be slightly elevated, like the base on Europa and it need not cover the entire planet initially.

 

[_Designer_]

Hey,

Neat idea. I am interested in helping with this. Are you thinking of something like this ?

https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1PCCOysrVWzMikcPJHW72JA1ZXsVF7V5Iu6HQ6BBvkXg/edit?hl=en_GB

I was thinking that but the tunnel out, will be set to about 30-60 degrees because it will launch out of the ocean, to land will have a rear tunnel with a 30 degree angel going down, should be enough to catch the strip properly and brake until you reach 0 on the angle.

I'll try and design a map of it, I am totally new to modding this, so it will be very tedious, if I can get a group together and we each have certain assignments set up, we could make it work. I am more of a graphic designer right now, c++ and meshes are kindergarten to me right now.

 

[_Designer_]

here is a brief design concept of what I am trying to develop...

 

[_Designer_]

I think so ya, but like I said it's a brief concept, I don't think I can have perfect angles or any physics applied to PhotoShop, lol.

this whole project is kindergarten to me, but I am willing to try a run on it.

 

[dumbo2007]

Don't you think both the Takeoff and Landing are a bit too small and a bit too low for an approaching spacecraft

Yes I second that because if you look from the perspective of an approaching Delta Glider, you need to be perfectly aligned to the tunnel and following a linear trajectory downwards. That I think is very hard to do as gravity forces most trajectories to be parabolic. If you miss then the DG can be called a flying submarine

A similar case exists for take off. During take off it would be really tough to maintain a direction straight up the tunnel and if we assume the DG is not in flight but is rolling along till the end of the tunnel then considerably more fuel would need to be expended to climb up the incline as compared to taking off from a flat runway.

Therefore I would have gone with a flat runway at the top of the base that is exposed to the elements(or covered when not in use, whatever), and let the vehicles land there, then lower them by elevator inside the base like in an aircraft carrier, just underwater.

 

[dumbo2007]

Yes, I think that would be a good idea, since it would not force a particular re-entry path on the orbiting vehicle. It would be huge however and dragging it around may not be very simple

If we are assuming a glider like the DG which can undertake major course corrections after re-entry, then a fixed base maybe a good idea, but then how to build the base in the middle of a ocean i.e. how to anchor it.

 

[RisingFury]

Landing tunnel? Holy freakin' Probe!

1.) You want people to fly *into* a tunnel to land?
2.) How the hell do you stop in a sloped tunnel without ramming your 2 billion dollar spacecraft into the hangar's ass...istance robotics?

---------- Post added at 13:21 ---------- Previous post was at 13:17 ----------

Yes I second that because if you look from the perspective of an approaching Delta Glider, you need to be perfectly aligned to the tunnel and following a linear trajectory downwards. That I think is very hard to do as gravity forces most trajectories to be parabolic.

Within the atmosphere, a winged aircraft will have a linear trajectory. The problem is the glide slope - an aircraft with a higher lift to drag ratio will glide at a lower angle, an aircraft with a lower lift to drag ratio will glide at a higher angle relative to the ground.

The tunnel forces the pilot to land at the start of the runway with no margin for error. In other words: Be there or take a swim!