Project Here goes nothing: The Delta-StarLiner G42

[Zachstar]

I would cover the front view completely during accent and decent. Leaving the option to open it subsonic.

The reason is MMOD hits are a pain in the butt and the shuttle gets hit all the time. With lots of flights means lots of hits and its better to hit something that is very strong and opaque rather than glass.

A small window or two on the side and top and bottom would do good for views but pilots who fly this would quickly get used to the view anyway. And better that they focus on the computer display and readouts.

Front docking just sounds like an expensive design hassle. Id focus on aerodymics and leave docking on the top or sides.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Plus, the front-side docking has the problem with the mechanics of the "petals" opening and closing. I didn't think the DG's (or XR-1's) structure looked substantial enough to survive re-entry (perhaps it's just me?), the XR-2's looks much heavier.
A dorsal docking makes pretty good sense, "shuttle-stlye". The Shuttle fleet has the [CTRL][Z] docking port camera, something similar with reconfigered RCS thrusters should make docking much easier.

 

[River Crab]

This just hit me now. How about the docking port being on the top, but under a door on the top of the nose, in front of the cockpit windows?

That way, you get the advantage of saving weight by not having a third console and more windows to control the RCS like the shuttle, and the realism of not having the door be right on the nose. This would set it apart, and plus, the pilot can be lazy and not move anywhere.

Well...even so, the bay port still makes more sense.

It might then make sense to move the cockpit further aft and flatten that part of the nose, putting the docking port where the cockpit was. That would look less stubby and you wouldn't have to move the RCS. The passengers would then go on the lower deck and the port would be right there.

Although, I'm more of a fan of a bomber or Shuttle style cockpit- I see the DG/fighter style bubble canopy as more for small vessels.

Look at the XB-70 for a good spacelike bomber cockpit. Actually, I think that shape with a little more blunt nose like Skylon would look good.

The Concorde visor sounds cool to operate, but I just don't see it fitting. :idk:

And as for covering up the windows, no I say! I want my view as wide as possible always.

 

[Moach]

as for the nose cone mechanism, that was one of the first things if wanted to improve in this ship... instead of four separate "petals", each with an individual mechanism, the whole nose is a single part, hinged on the bottom in a way that it flips 180 degrees...

this way, not only we can strip some extra weight, we eliminate the seams in the middle of the most critical part of the heat-shielding...

the only drawback, is that due to the weight of the nose, and size of the actuators, it can only be operated in microgravity... or in a hangar with proper maintenance gear....

irrelevant anyways... unlike the DG, the G42 is built in a way that the nose wheel well extends below the cabin, so the ground access hatch is located there, and the crew can enter/leave just like in a Sukhoi 32 jet... no need to operate the nose door when grounded


i might try to re-shape the nose just a bit, to make it less blunt,
although i can think how a blunt nose can actually help protect the forward section by creating a stagnation zone around it... then heat would be more a problem than airflow impact
but i'm not sure how good this idea is.... specially in scram-flight...

maybe a considerable re-design of the nose is due....

 

[River Crab]

maybe a considerable re-design of the nose is due....

I think this is the point where you must decide:

How much do you really like that DG cockpit?

You said before that you liked that cockpit. However, everything about the DG is both sci-fi and intended for a small vessel.

If the issue is programming the RCS, then that's understandable. There are, however, some .msh viewers on orbithangar which can tell you the position of a point, where you can put the RCS exhaust effect.

As for the docking port, I think it would be reasonable to have it on top, a system like the XR5.

The door in front of the cockpit is also an option- something like the B-1B Lancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer), but with a docking port under a door, rather than a fueling thing. No other orbiter vessel has this, so it might help set yours apart. It's more realistic than the entire nose opening up, isn't as heavy, and it still has the advantage of being right in the pilot's face.

The B-1 also has a ladder under it, and it's a large-ish vessel made for high-speed flight, so modeling it after that might work out.
The B1's nose looks to be just about the right pointyness for this type of vessel.
The cockpit is also very similar to the DG, but it doesn't bulge out. That's a plus for believability.

Yes, the B1 seems like a good model- remember what inspired Coolhand in making the XR2?

No matter what, this thing is going to be awesome.
To quote a famous tennis player, "Never give up!"

 

[Moach]

i think i got it down now...

i might have found a solution that works both visually and functionally... check this out:

i managed to stretch the nose a bit... bringing it back closer to the stock DG, in fact... before it was a bit stumpier... now its a little sharper

dunno why, it reminds me of the SR-71... probably the angle between nose and windshield...

anyways... it does look faster now... more capable of enduring hipersonic flight...


yet, that windshield looks mighty unprotected... so what about this?:

i have devised a way to extend a hyperflight visor from the upper nose (dont worry, it has windows)

the visor is composed of a large cover, which hinges from the front of the nose and an extending section that brigdes the gap between the cover and the cockpit bulge, creating a seamless profile...

this allows for outstanding visibility when the visor is down, combined with aerodynamical efficiency when it's up...

i've managed to keep the moving parts down to a minimum of four key sections: the nose cover, windshield adaptor and two lateral doors that allow the cover to rise from it's retracted position, sitting tightly against it's side when extended

maybe not very clear on the pics.... once it has textures it should be easier to understand...


the visor should only be necessary for flying under intense dynamic pressure and low AoA, as occurs during RAMCASTER ascent, other than that, it's safe to keep it down without blowingup the windshield... even durig reentry, since the AoA should be high enough to keep the cockpit out of the hot zone



still, the simple fact that the ship has a sleeker nose now, implies the removal of the nose dock, which means we're moving that to the bay, like the shuttle


without that door, i can now continue reshaping the nose more freely, i've always liked the B1 profile... should perform well, i think...


reprograming the positions of the RCS jets is no problem at all... i wrote a simple maxscript that outputs positions as C++ #defines, so it's just repositioning the dummies and ctrl+c, ctrl+v... i have a similar one for updating meshgroup id's... so no problems there either, even if i do get rid of the nose door


or... with a smaller nose door, instead of the docking port, we could mount a set of retro-thrusters there... i've been meaning to find somewhere to stick those... the nose looks like a good solution

yet, i plan to keep my single hinged door design... those petals look like asking for trouble :cook:



cheerz

 

[Izack]

Maybe it's just me, but the angular nose doesn't seem to fit quite right with the smooth, curved wings. It still like it, though. Half-Shuttle, half-Concorde. :thumbup:

 

[River Crab]

Awesome!

Actually it was the DG cockpit that threw me off before.
I like the profile with the visor up a lot more, it makes the entire thing look bigger. After seeing the XR2 Mk II and now this, the DG cockpit looks like old tech.
This vessel is actually huge, so make it look the part.
Also, with all those sharp edges, it probably wouldn't hurt to redesign the windows to match. Take the look of the sharp windows on the visor and the ceiling, and apply it to the old cockpit and the passenger windows.

Another modeling suggestion, is to add thickness to all the parts that are currently just single polygons. That's why the DGIV mesh looked so good.
I see some reversed normals showing through on the nose joint- adding thickness should fix that (or merging the nose).

You might want to subdivide the leading edge of the wing just a tiny bit, in order to avoid the appearance of a blocky mesh. Not too much, but just enough to make the shading not look cut off.
Then again, the SR-71 and F-104 needed covers on their leading edges because someone could get cut, so maybe you'll want to keep that.

As for the dock- If it's going in the bay, it would need another console for docking RCS in the rear cabin. Just sayin'.

Any ideas for what company makes this? It needs moar logos, and some backstory.

For the interior, do you plan on using the textures and stuff from the stock DG?
I can try to get/make you some textures.
I'm not Coolhand but I'm OK with Photoshop.
Just tell me what you need- General things for now, like insulation, docking ring, insides of doors, etc.

I'm telling you, this is huge! You could change the face of the Orbiter community!

 

[Moach]

i still have some refining to do on the model... i like to work with the lowest possible poly count at first, and refine it into detail later on... it's easier to work with as few vertices as possible, since adding more later is quite easy, while removing, not quite...

i learned that while making the "737 exterience" for fs2004...


so before this this can be called "done", it's gonna have a lot more detail, including some depth those panels, and some extra chamfer on the new windows

the problem with sharp edged windows (like the DGIV) is that it creates a structural weakpoint in its corners...
it happened to the dehavilland comet, the jet's fuselage would plain blow up from accumulated stress on the square window corners... later, they found out that with a pressurized cabin, comes the need for rounded windows, which evenly distribute the pressure along it's edge, and stop it from going "boom"

so even if there are straight sections on the windows, you need the corners to be a bit rounded, or else heavy reinforcements will be needed to overcome the weakpoint

yet i might do something about them.... perhaps they could look cooler


i reckon a rear console will be needed for docking... i was gonna add one anyways just to work the cargo bay, now theres a new use for it :hmm:
the rear and top windows are already there... it's just adding the console then - and a docking port rig...


now, the cockpit might be based on that of the DG, but once inside it's more advanced...
we have not two, but 3 all-purpose MFDs (already programmed and working) with touchscreen buttons... three other mfds display vessel-specific info, such as engines, fuel and other systems' status
other displays are also LCDs... i find the DG does have too much analog stuff in the pit, not quite fitting for a high-tech craft, so i went for a glass-cockpit approach

 

[River Crab]

Sounds cool.
I'm gonna trust your modeling skills, since you have gotten this far. :thumbup:

With the pit, I'd suggest not making it too sci-fi/totally digital. While the XR2 pit looks kinda cool, flying in a cockpit that's entirely a digital touch screen would be:
1. Clumsy
2. Awkward
and
3. Scary
Think of flying that. You can't feel if you've pressed a switch, and it's easy to set off, so you might very easily hit something by accident, or hit the wrong button. Look at the switches in the STS- all covered and recessed. Also, with all glass, in case of failure, you are pretty much screwed. You would become blind and hopeless if the XR2's screens were to fail. You can't even operate the gear without going through a computer!

My suggestion is, make digital switches do digital things, and analogue switches analogue things. Even with fly-by-wire, you don't have to (and you can't) route everything through the big computer. It looks like you're going there, so no worries. Digital gauges are good, as long s there's backup.
By all means don't make it like the STS pit (which is a total mess by modern aviation standards), but try for something like the newest Airbus cockpits. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Airbus_A380_cockpit.jpg)
Uncluttered and easy to understand, yet functional even in an emergency.

Also, do not make flat-screen displays that aren't square. That just looks silly. If you must, put a black border around it to keep it square.

I would also move away from those lightswitches they use in the DG, and put in some real hardware. This isn't a luxury car, so make the switches (however few) look like buisness. Look at military aircraft for that.
A model for the cockpit might be the Saitek X52 pro. It's digital, modern, and futuristic, but not gaudy like the neon-blue-raspberry X52 was. And somehow costs almost 1.5 times as much!

Any screenshots of the working cockpit yet?
Textures?

Anyway, keep it up. You're the king.

 

[T.Neo]

All the digital whatnots are fine as long as you have analogue backups, and a slide rule or two.

Reminds me though of the F-16 joystick that did not move, but responded via pressure sensors in the stick. Pilots far preferred a real joystick...

 

[River Crab]

...and a slide rule or two.

You should stick an E6B in there somewhere, just because. :lol:
Also, this should totally be your warning voice callout:
http://www.youmail.com/community/greeting/13917
"Emergency. Emergency. There's an emergency going on. It's still going on. It's still an emergency. This is an emergency announcement."

 

[Moach]

ah yes! by no means i plan on making anything that's absolutely dependant on them touchscreens...

i like buttons, in fact, i chose to not have a touchscreen cellphone for that very reason, and bought one with a physical QWERTY pad...

i like to feel my buttons go "click" under my fingers...


if you roll back a few pages on this thread, you'll see the yet unfinished cockpit - only the three main mfds have touchscreens for the softkeys... all other buttons are phyisical...

following the mentioned rule-of-thumb, digital buttons do digital things, physical buttons do physical things


except for the FMC... there we have physical buttons for digital things :hmm:

 

[Izack]

I too am a fan of more conventional control surfaces (the ones in cockpits, not wings :lol. Keep up the good work, you're doing well. :thumbup:

 

[River Crab]

Looks like we're all on the same page. Which is a different one than Coolhand.

Any idea of the final payload capacity/bay size?
You might want to set a goal for yourself, to avoid having a capability problem like the STS did, and then have to cheat. And also so we can make/adapt payloads for it now. Will it use Kulch's cargo deck, or what?

I suggest capability to transfer UMMUs to a vessel docked in the bay. I can already see this carrying an XR0 (Kliper-like XR vessel for the XR2 bay, in development) or an inflated ISRU, and someone could possibly make a passenger cargo for it.
This is just one of those things you may or may not want. :thumbup:

You could have the rear-facing bay port (not an airlock) built in, and make the top-facing airlock an additional cargo.

The other way would just be to have 2 ports (which might not be too bad, since they only need one airlock for both).

One or none of those things.:thumbup:

 

[Hielor]

Reminds me though of the F-16 joystick that did not move, but responded via pressure sensors in the stick. Pilots far preferred a real joystick...

Well, the purpose of the F-16 stick was to allow full control of the aircraft even during high-gee maneuvers, and it succeeded at that.

The desktop version, though...notsomuch. I can't remember the time I pulled more than about 1.5gees at my desk...

 

[jaybtlr]

hey guys i have been watching this post for ages and i have to say: grats to you, i cant wait to fly this baby!

 

[Moach]

i read again some of the last posts... funny you should mention the x52 pro, not only i have one right here, i actually did model it into the G42 cockpit

it has indeed a more "we mean business!" look to it... none of that neon stuff... so much, in fact, it has been used in movies - in "the day the earth stood still" (new version), you can see the military guys using x52's to fly the UAVs... now, in "G.I.Joe", the super-duper hyper jet craft thing in the end, has an x52 in it's cockpit, as you can clearly see in a close-up shot :rofl:

can't blame them... it DOES look cool



and yeah, that a380 pit is pretty much what i'm going for, not as messy as the STS, but not something that reminds you of an iphone :thumbup:
just instead of the laptop-keyboards, i chose for a smaller MFC-like console in the middle... we don't have all that much room to spare now, do we?

let's see if i can get those displays to render properly now... can't seem to get the damn fonts to work right :embarrassed:

 

[T.Neo]

The desktop version, though...notsomuch. I can't remember the time I pulled more than about 1.5gees at my desk...

I don't think I want to ask how you pulled more than 1 gee. :lol:

 

[River Crab]

Haha, perfect! Those are some smart set designers, free joystick!:rofl:
I have an X52. Now I want to upgrade to the pro version even more!


Anyway, I was thinking about the radiator (I think too much). Although the obvious place to put it is in the bay, the engines must get scorching hot during prolonged flight. It looks like you already have a panel in the model for the radiator, but hear me out. :blahblah:

Add a hydraulic flap or two above the engines that would function like a speedbrake (along with the elevons and flappervators), BUT
would also conceal a radiator panel, operated by a separate switch. This could withstand a good amount of dynP, and would immediately begin to disperse heat when opened. Plus look a lot cooler than the DGIV or XR1 radiator.

When I open my radiator, I'd rather be relieved that my ship is being cooled, than worry about it being ripped off due to accidental aerobraking.:shrug:

Also I can post a sketch of possible radiator designs, if you fancy that. If not, just say so. It's all good.