Orbiter 2024 Launch readiness

[GLS]

Didn’t realize that it was correct in British English. So, just ignore me.

That was my first impression when I first started this work: "hey, a typo... oh wait"

 

[misha.physics]

Excuse me if this is the wrong place, but what about adding the 2x, 4x time acceleration into the game (maybe assigning a separate key for this)?

 

[GLS]

Excuse me if this is the wrong place, but what about adding the 2x, 4x time acceleration into the game (maybe assigning a separate key for this)?

Ctrl+2 and you can pick the number you want.

 

[misha.physics]

Oh, Ctrl+F2, I realy didn't know that

 

[misha.physics]

Maybe some pictures from old Orbiter versions must be deleted?:



That's Orbiter 2024 RC2.

 

[GLS]

Maybe some pictures from old Orbiter versions must be deleted?:

View attachment 41084

That's Orbiter 2024 RC2.

Checking and updating the scenario descriptions is also on my documentation "to do" list... but I haven't gotten there yet.

I'm currently (re)learning how to use the TransX MFD, so I can explain it in the manual (I've spent the last few years in Earth orbit, so I haven't used it in a while). Still remembered enough to make a direct hit on the Moon on my first try, but this thing can do A LOT of stuff, and the existing documentation doesn't seem to cover most of it.

 

[francisdrake]

I'm currently (re)learning how to use the TransX MFD,

Years ago I did a quickstart-guide for TransX. Maybe this is helpful, see attached.

 

[GLS]

Years ago I did a quickstart-guide for TransX. Maybe this is helpful, see attached.

Thanks! That doc is part of the sources in Orbiter, and I've already included that info.

 

[misha.physics]

The "D3D9 Debug Controls" disappears from the function window after the second relaunching a scenario, but it appears again after exiting and reopening the Orbiter launchpad. I checked the Orbiter 2024 RC2, but I noticed this feature in previous versions too (OpenOrbiter):



I couldn't reproduce this issue with Orbiter 2016.

 

[misha.physics]

The "D3D9 Atmospheric Controls" disappears as well after severel relaunching a scenario:

 

[GLS]

I should have been able to figure this out, but my head is just too fried with documentation...

What is the yaw gimbal range of the DG: 7.4º or 7.7º?

const double MAIN_PGIMBAL_RANGE = tan (5.0*RAD);
const double MAIN_YGIMBAL_RANGE = 1.0/7.7;
// main engine pitch and yaw gimbal range (tan)

// ....

void GimbalControl::SetMainPGimbal (int which, double lvl)
{
    VECTOR3 dir;
    DG()->GetMainThrusterDir (which, dir);
    dir /= dir.z;
    mpgimbal[which] = dir.y = MAIN_PGIMBAL_RANGE*lvl;
    DG()->SetMainThrusterDir (which, unit(dir));
}

// --------------------------------------------------------------

void GimbalControl::SetMainYGimbal (int which, double lvl)
{
    VECTOR3 dir;
    DG()->GetMainThrusterDir (which, dir);
    dir /= dir.z;
    mygimbal[which] = dir.x = MAIN_YGIMBAL_RANGE*lvl;
    DG()->SetMainThrusterDir (which, unit(dir));
}

 

[GLS]

A bit more progress in the documentation: proof reading fixes and updates, and some work in the TransX section.
The latest versions of 3 docs: https://gofile.io/d/M0P8wI

 

[n72.75]

I should have been able to figure this out, but my head is just too fried with documentation...

What is the yaw gimbal range of the DG: 7.4º or 7.7º?

const double MAIN_PGIMBAL_RANGE = tan (5.0*RAD);
const double MAIN_YGIMBAL_RANGE = 1.0/7.7;
// main engine pitch and yaw gimbal range (tan)

// ....

void GimbalControl::SetMainPGimbal (int which, double lvl)
{
    VECTOR3 dir;
    DG()->GetMainThrusterDir (which, dir);
    dir /= dir.z;
    mpgimbal[which] = dir.y = MAIN_PGIMBAL_RANGE*lvl;
    DG()->SetMainThrusterDir (which, unit(dir));
}

// --------------------------------------------------------------

void GimbalControl::SetMainYGimbal (int which, double lvl)
{
    VECTOR3 dir;
    DG()->GetMainThrusterDir (which, dir);
    dir /= dir.z;
    mygimbal[which] = dir.x = MAIN_YGIMBAL_RANGE*lvl;
    DG()->SetMainThrusterDir (which, unit(dir));
}

atan(1/7.7) = 7.4°

Why is the code like that? no idea haha, but it's a bit confusing...

Anything I can help with on documentation?

 

[GLS]

atan(1/7.7) = 7.4°

Why is the code like that? no idea haha, but it's a bit confusing...

It seems a bit too optimized... maybe a comment would help... anyway, it is clarified, thanks!

Anything I can help with on documentation?

Well, proof reading (doing that during lunch, and I'm only up to the DG section of Orbiter User Manual), or a more accurate Voyager-2 TransX plan, only until Saturn (let the user then apply the acquired knowledge to get to Uranus and Neptune). There are a bunch of (old) scenarios for that trip, but they start in 1976 and not 77...I'm sorry, but this needs to be a little better.
For TransX, the plan is to have 3 scenarios:

• LEO to Lunar orbit (done): the most simple case on which to use TransX;
• Earth surface to Mars surface (in progress): a bit more complex, handling the launch into the Earth-departure plane;
• Voyager-2 trajectory (researching): the advanced use case, with the plan already defined in the scenario (unlike the previous 2 scenarios).

On the Voyager-2 plan, it seems that the launch is everything, as the TCMs were a few dozen m/s at the most. For now I'm trying to get the Mars stuff complete, hopefully this week.

Also, there is the question of the Lua and scripting MFDs sections, and how much is in these docs (User Manual and Developer Manual) vs the .chm files.

 

[n72.75]

Well, proof reading

Very happy to help with this. I have the documentation built and will read through it.

but they start in 1976 and not 77...

um what!? wow. Yeah that would need to be fixed.

Also, there is the question of the Lua and scripting MFDs sections, and how much is in these docs (User Manual and Developer Manual) vs the .chm files.

I cannot speak to that, I presume the @Gondos and @Kozak would be the best to provide input for Lua documentation. the chm format is proprietary and microsoft; I see no reason to continue with it for new documentation.

 

[Gondos]

The Lua API documentation is generated from comments in the source code with the ldoc tool. It generates an html file structure that is then converted to a chm file with htmlhelp.
Is there a good tool to convert an html static site to pdf?

 

[QuarksUnited]

Hi all, Burn Time Calculator MFD won't work with Open Orbiter now RC2 ?

also not able to find prograde velocity to automin in transx mfd , please help

 

[n72.75]

I read through the Orbiter Technical Reference last night, no issues of note. will read through the other two soon.

 

[GLS]

I think trying the Voyager-2 trajectory in TransX exposes a big weakness in it: not taking into account the mass of the planets, which when going near Jupiter really messes up the precision of the plan. I can put some offsets (leaving Earth aiming to encounter Jupiter ~7 days after the historical date) to end up in the correct place at the correct time and fly-by all the moons as Voyager-2 did (after some more brute-force corrections during the approach), but this makes it impossible to perform informed course corrections, as there is no "clear" target to aim.
Even forgetting about the historical part, and just flying by the planets, aiming to Saturn from Jupiter requires several corrections as the vessel approaches Jupiter and the pulling begins, so I'm not sure of the value of this simplified Grand Tour version. I'll probably try it until the weekend, and then we'll see.

That said, it is a great tool, and I particularly like the Slingshot view, which illustrates very well the orientation of a flyby.

 

[n72.75]

I think trying the Voyager-2 trajectory in TransX exposes a big weakness in it: not taking into account the mass of the planets, which when going near Jupiter really messes up the precision of the plan. I can put some offsets (leaving Earth aiming to encounter Jupiter ~7 days after the historical date) to end up in the correct place at the correct time and fly-by all the moons as Voyager-2 did (after some more brute-force corrections during the approach), but this makes it impossible to perform informed course corrections, as there is no "clear" target to aim.
Even forgetting about the historical part, and just flying by the planets, aiming to Saturn from Jupiter requires several corrections as the vessel approaches Jupiter and the pulling begins, so I'm not sure of the value of this simplified Grand Tour version. I'll probably try it until the weekend, and then we'll see.

That said, it is a great tool, and I particularly like the Slingshot view, which illustrates very well the orientation of a flyby.

It occurs to me that I have no idea how TransX works under the hood. What do you mean, it doesn't account for the planet mass?

There are certainly some limitations that probably can't be avoided from a mission planing standpoint. Even IMFD with its lambert solver, I think it would be a real struggle to come up with the Voyager 2 mission plan, without prior knowledge of it. gmat still wins in the end. I think an approximate solution is fine here.


Also... I've finished reading through the Orbiter manual. it's looking excellent from what I can see. it's probably been about 15 years since I read the manual cover to cover.