Space Shuttle Simulator 2007

[Urwumpe]

Urwumpe,
Since your almost ridiculous nitpicking of drawbacks in SSM I guess you found it quite good?
You forgot that they don't simulate the visit to the toilet either.
What I'm trying to say is, how does the SSME gimbals work in Orbiter, how do we start the APU and all that stuff??

If you find the critical testing is ridiculous (after all, don't you SSM fans want us SSU developers to first really test SSM before we complain about it?), then I could as well say that the bugs I have found are hilarious.

Lets take the cabin pressure: The lower limit for cabin pressure in the C&W system of the Shuttle is 13.76 PSI. SSM displays Apollo-like 4.6 PSI. With the Shuttle standard atmosphere (20% oxygen) the astronauts would be suffocating already. Also how can you have 4.6 psi while the hatch is supposed to be still open? Or how can you vent the pressure inside the cabin to a lower pressure than ambient sea level pressure?


No small bug - especially not if you want to earn $50 with the product.

That the SSME nozzles point in the wrong directions during prelaunch, is also something NASA TV viewers would notice quickly. Or that the SRBs separate without BSMs.

I can promise you to include visits to the waste management system, once we do crew simulation in SSU. Because we can. Our astronauts don't run to the next bath room directly after landing!

In Space Shuttle Ultra, the APU start is simply like the checklists call for:

At -6:15, the pilot does the APU prestart on Panel R2:
(check) BLR N2 SPLY (3) - ON
(check) BLR PWR (3) - ON
(check) BLR CNTLR/HTR (3) - A
(check) HYD CIRC PUMP (3) - GPC
(check) APU FU TK VLV ENA (6) - cl
(check) APU FU TK VLV (3) - CL
(check) APU AUTO SHTDN (3) - ENA
(check) APU SPEED SEL (3) - NORM
(check) APU OPER (3) - OFF
HYD MN PUMP PRESS (3) - LO
APU CNTLR PWR (3) - ON
APU FU TK VLV (3) - OP
(check) APU/HYD RDY tb (3) - gray


(note: The talkbacks change already to gray after you opened the tank valves)

GLS will check this state at T-5:25 in the future.

At T-5:00, the pilot does the APU start on R2:
APU OPER (3) - START/RUN
(check) HYD PRESS ind (3) - LO green
(check) APU/HYD RDY tb (3) - barberpole
HYD MN PUMP PRESS (3) - NORM
(check) HYD PRESS ind (3) - HI green
CIRC PUMP (3) - OFF
F7 (check) PRESS light - off

And it is done. The APUs provide gimbal pressure for the SSMEs. currently, you can indeed launch with no running APUs (as we have neither GLS nor ground launch control), later versions shall prevents this as noobs forget this all the time.

But hey, we don't charge $50 for our bugs and the promise that our project is still work in progress. If you want to give us $50 anyway, we will sure find some social organization requiring a donation.

 

[Xantcha]

Doubt that I would dload 100 MB demo any time soon (it's a bit costly for me)
But since it continuation of work on S3 I guess I can have some opinion on topic.

Out of curiosity I've tried Virgin's "shuttle: space flight simulaotor" game recently. And actually managed to complete quite a bunch of missions. Lots of bad simulation that irritates the hell out of me. (as if outdated graphics were not enough!) Yet it was somewhat fun.

S3 was basically modern update on that concept. Finer graphics, higher resolution panels, more clickable switches, finally a GPC with some logic beside it. It also had contradicting and at sometimes wrong instructions, weird aerodynamics and no missions at that time. Too bad but, but at least it had nicely compiled documentation on shuttle systems.
SSM 2007 looks like it have more graphical content and most importantly - it has scripted missions. And since missions are the core of that genre, I think SSM2007 cold be pretty fun.

And whether $50 is fair price for what SSM2007 is (or whether space sim community is large enough for commercialisation) - final product will not become worse or better. The fact that this game solds for that much means only that it's authors are risky enough to try and do some buisness. (IMHO developing a realistic comerrcial space sim is not the best and surest way to make money and spend worktime).

After all, space sims are extremely niche genre. For me any half-decent space sim is good news.

P.S. Some random thoughts on commercial space sims:
What I really would like to see is character animation with ragdoll physics for unlimited EVA fun.
Also - how much could AMSO cost?

 

[SPASE_1976]

i hate SSM 2007 and if there will be an SSM 2008 i will hate it too
because if you are at one side you cant love the other side.
because that will make you a traitor and that is an dishonour.

(ok,its a crap post but i needed to write something)

 

[AstroM]

SPASE_1976,
Yeah, now I start recognise the old Orbiter forum mentality.:huh:


Simonpro,
Coooool if you know the guy! Why not introduce yourself next time you meet him and say hello from me. Then you can insult each other face to face. Would be more mature then using this forum. Or don't you have the guts.


Urwumpe,
Of course you should tell us about the bugs you find. Its great that guys from here test stuff before they start call it crap, and that's not only applies to SSM. However, I think you are quite wrong in some of your observations. Comparing to the Shuttle Crew Operations Manual from 2003 SSM is doing the APU/HYD system 100% correct. Keep in mind that SSM only simulates the latest shuttle tech available. Improved APUs and stuff. It also uses the OI-29 software, so I guess there could be changes in some procedures. Its a drawback of course, but I guess it was much easier to have one generic launch/entry system. Its stated in the manual that this is the approach, and that the developers are aware of that the STS-1 shuttle have different looks and all that.
Cant argue about the other issues you mention anyway.
Oh, except that the low cabin pressure when the cabin vent is open was fixed in the latest version of SSM. I think the demo is two versions old.
The cool thing by using SSM is that there's always suggestions and complains like yours on the SSM forums and they are usually fixed in the next version.


I really don't wanna discourage the work of the add-on developers for Orbiter, but there has been a lot of "we can do that" and "that can easily be implemented" but it just doesn't happen. Its been like that since over 3 years ago when S3 was released.
Of course development takes time, and people works in spare time, but there seems to be many "experts" and graphics modellers in this crowd and very few programmers.


Oh, just my 2 cents.
I think i will go for Mars this evening:speakcool:.

 

[Urwumpe]

SPASE_1976,
Comparing to the Shuttle Crew Operations Manual from 2003 SSM is doing the APU/HYD system 100% correct. Keep in mind that SSM only simulates the latest shuttle tech available. Improved APUs and stuff. It also uses the OI-29 software, so I guess there could be changes in some procedures.

That has nothing to do with modernized APUs (which had been only tiny bug fixes so far, but no general changes) or other software (the APU ready to start talkbacks are not operated by the GPCs at all).

I compared the sequence to the STS-1 ascent checklists, and it was not even compliant to that (but the timing of the leak checks was indeed slightly different in STS-1, compared to STS-114 and following missions - but not like SSM). The talkbacks don't flip to gray only because it is now time for starting the APUs.

We in SSU also only do the latest stuff, because we want to have one Shuttle orbiter simulation finished first, before the optional stuff comes. We only have a few hours of time every day...

 

[bujin]

i hate SSM 2007 and if there will be an SSM 2008 i will hate it too

There won't be an SSM2008, so don't worry.

There will be an SSM2009 though...

 

[AstroM]

Ok, Urwumpe, I give up.
No reason banging my head to the wall. The APUs works fine in SSM and the ready-to-start talk backs can be enabled anytime in the mission so it has nothing to do where you are in the mission.
The launch procedures is taken from the normal procedures summary in the Shuttle Crew Operations manual dated 2003, and not from any mission check list. And SSM follows that manual perfect. I bought it a couple of years ago and it costs more then SSM. People here don't seem to keen on paying other individuals for their work so I doubt you have read it.

But I'll rest my case now.
Wish you good luck with the SSU. Guess there's still plenty of months to go before anything is close to finished, and as usual some idiots will start nagging about that it never gets finished and piss the developers off so they stop the add-on development for a while before being convinced by the sane majority of users that they absolutely must go on. Been there done that!

I'm sure I will love SSU when it gets finished, but I don't know how much SSM will improve in the same time.
To sum it up, I don't wanna rack down on SSU in any way! I just don't like people who disregards others work. That includes calling someones video work crap instead of giving the creator tips how he could improve it in a polite way instead of sounding like a Nazi commander during exercise.


And now for something completely different.................

Space, the final frontier...............

 

[Urwumpe]

Ok, Urwumpe, I give up.

Yeah, I see. You give up just like Hillary.

The APUs works fine in SSM and the ready-to-start talk backs can be enabled anytime in the mission so it has nothing to do where you are in the mission.

Why doesn't it behave like that? And now, don't tell me: The Demo is two versions behind. I tested it three times to be sure. I don't know how you think about it, but I like to know where I stand and where I have to go. Having problems to solve gives the day structure.

The launch procedures is taken from the normal procedures summary in the Shuttle Crew Operations manual dated 2003, and not from any mission check list. And SSM follows that manual perfect. I bought it a couple of years ago and it costs more then SSM. People here don't seem to keen on paying other individuals for their work so I doubt you have read it.

Our main references are so far the holy bible of SCOM (Shuttle Orbiter Subsystem Reference), the sacred DPS dictionary (which also contains limited information about the latest software versions flown) and the flight Data Files published by JSC under the Freedom of Information act.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/flightdatafiles/index.html

Now, you can say, that your operations manual from 2003 tells you different. I would say the actual checklists are more believable.

Additionally we have the launch commitment and generic flight rules... though we currently ignore most information inside them... Also interesting is IBMs information about the System/360 series and the Payload Manuals of the STS.

Of course we are not keen into paying people. We do that only if we have to and can expect something for that. That does not mean that we can't appreciate work. We know ourself well how much work is behind a Shuttle simulation. But that is also part of my personal philosophy: "If you have to do hard work, do it right at the first attempt."

What is the sense behind making a complex shuttle simulation, when you know it is already wrong? Do you think we will receive any kudos for our project, when the magic is always broken by tiny errors?

When I was a small apprentice in the German Aerospace Center, I learned one important rule: "Testers wear white hats". When somebody finds a bug, this is your fault that you did not discover it before. Instead of attacking the tester, you should at least smile and say "thank you" before you ignore him.

 

[simonpro]

Simonpro,
Coooool if you know the guy! Why not introduce yourself next time you meet him and say hello from me. Then you can insult each other face to face. Would be more mature then using this forum. Or don't you have the guts.

Believe me, next time I see him I will let him know exactly what I think of him, and you trying to wind me up by questioning my courage is as pointless as Djurgården trying to resign Källström.
He is also free to insult me whenever the hell he likes, water off a duck's back

Also, as a friendly note, watch yourself. Hiding behind the Albanian flag doesn't fool anyone.

 

[Kyle]

Space Shuttle Ultra > Space Shuttle Mission 2007.
Reasons.
1. Cost's 50 Dollars to buy.
2. Not even a proper checklist.
3. The Earth is not realistic looking.
4. All the Textures for the Early shuttles are wrong.
5. Addon's cost money.

 

[AstroM]

Oh crap! Never noticed that you should chose nationality when registering.

Kyle, Add ons for SSM is free.

 

[Xantcha]

Space Shuttle Ultra > Space Shuttle Mission 2007.
Reasons.
1. Cost's 50 Dollars to buy.
2. Not even a proper checklist.
3. The Earth is not realistic looking.
4. All the Textures for the Early shuttles are wrong.
5. Addon's cost money.

Oh my, SSU is not finished, why bother comparing them now?

Also abit off topic - http://www.apollosimulator.com/? Screenshots show *imperfect* models, site design just does not feel right. Still looks like a potentially interesting thing (it's space sim after all). Have anyone tried that?

 

[Urwumpe]

Oh my, SSU is not finished, why bother comparing them now?

You can always bother us, but currently, you have to draw numbers for feature requests as we attempt to summon a feature freeze for the next release.

And you can even participate in the project without having add-on making skills.

Also abit off topic - http://www.apollosimulator.com/? Screenshots show *imperfect* models, site design just does not feel right. Still looks like a potentially interesting thing (it's space sim after all). Have anyone tried that?

Some have tested it already, but it seems like it is not as interesting as NASSP or AMSO. But from the screen shots it is a nice project with little beauty errors (like the reentry attitude).

 

[Master of Blades]

Tbh, the only thing i liked about SSM was the behaviour of the sun (lens flares, "fading" when spacecraft is front of it), and the music D:

 

[Pilot7893]

I find it rather funny that because of all the setbacks, Space Shuttle Mission 2007 ended up being released in 2008:rofl:

 

[DaveS]

I find it rather funny that because of all the setbacks, Space Shuttle Mission 2007 ended up being released in 2008:rofl:

Not true. Was released on December 25 2007.

 

[Pilot7893]

Not true. Was released on December 25 2007.

That was the planned release, but a problem with uploading it to the website set it to early january

 

[Urwumpe]

That was the planned release, but a problem with uploading it to the website set it to early january

We had the discussions in the orbiter Forum about it already in December 2007...

 

[DaveS]

That was the planned release, but a problem with uploading it to the website set it to early january

Actually not. I remembered the day wrong, but the not the month. It was really released on December 30 2007.

 

[Pilot7893]

A lot of things are inaccurate

Including their grammar. This was typed on the on-screen instructions during STS-31-"the high-gain antennas is deployed by ground control"