Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Addons > Addon Development
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Addon Development Developers post news, updates, & discussions here about your projects in development.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-03-2014, 04:12 AM   #121
orbitingpluto
Orbiteer
Default

My thoughts on one way this could go without the complex flight model:

No switch throwing, and nothing simulated in complex comes into play. You tap Numpad +, and the engine bangs on and off without any prior interaction. The ship doesn't keep track of anything other than propellent, and will presume that any RCS propellent can be used by all thrusters, so there's no need to crossfeed, or model separate tanks. Reentry and landing could be handled like complex mode though, for the most part, maybe including dying. The reason I think reentry and landing should be similar so that learning how to do something on simple mode won't cause too much of a problem in complex mode. I think being indestructible or having huge margins to fall back on would make the switch to complex harder, but I kinda recognize this might be a bad idea. It's a just a thought.
orbitingpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 02-03-2014, 08:34 AM   #122
4throck
Enthusiast !
 
4throck's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hlynkacg View Post
 Note that I am specifically talking about when the player leaves "Complex Flight Model" check-box un-checked.

Most users will load a scenario and simply fly with the spacecraft as it comes. They will not change their Orbiter's configuration.
So any features you add should be enabled/disabled by scenario. Otherwise, most people may never even be aware of them.
4throck is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 02-03-2014, 10:07 AM   #123
N_Molson
Addon Developer
 
N_Molson's Avatar

Angry

Quote:
You tap Numpad +, and the engine bangs on and off without any prior interaction.
Please, no, no ! A short throttle up / throttle down ignition / cutoff sequence is a minimum. Even better if you have to power on some systems prior to that.
Quote:
Otherwise, most people may never even be aware of them.
RTFM !!
N_Molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 02-03-2014, 10:42 AM   #124
4throck
Enthusiast !
 
4throck's Avatar
Default

You can cry all you want ....
Sure, people will read the manual if they find the addon interesting enough after the first 10 minutes of use.If not, they will move on to other things.


As an example, look at Apple. I'm not a fan, but they to have a point in focussing on the user first. Sure, their products are dumbed down and do less, BUT they are appealing...

The user will perceive more value from less apparent features. That is a fact!


Nevertheless I'm just saying that a nice "arcade" or "invencible" mode should be selected by a scenario parameter.

That way both audiences can use the same addon, and even have a replay value by repeating mission in "hard mode". Simply offer the scenarios in two flavours.
4throck is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 02-03-2014, 12:23 PM   #125
orbitingpluto
Orbiteer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N_Molson View Post
 Please, no, no ! A short throttle up / throttle down ignition / cutoff sequence is a minimum. Even better if you have to power on some systems prior to that.
I'm talking about a simple mode here. Systems to monitor are a good thing, but they add more to deal with. Trying to get a Apollo mission to land on the Moon for the first time, a person might want a simple mode so they can focus on not running of dv or smacking the stack into the Moon. For that kind of first outing, a user is bound to have plenty of unfamiliar things to deal with, so why clutter that up with systems management? If a new guy is trying to make his burn on time, he should be able to worry about that and not about how much helium he'll use or whether the valves are open. That isn't to say it should be just a noob-mode, I appreciate the idea of a mode where I the only thing I need to worry about is my flying.

As a feature request related to this simple/complex flight thing, could there be a scenario line that could trigger an 'safe' mode for docked Apollos? I'm think that when a normally complex CSM with this tag docks, preferably with a space station or something like that, that it won't run it's on it's consumables and act as though it's being cooled and supported by the station. I think something like this would come in handy after complex systems capable of causing negative effects are coded.
orbitingpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 02-14-2014, 12:07 AM   #126
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
 
Hlynkacg's Avatar


Default

Just a note that despite obligations in meat space I'm still working on AAPO.

In fact I just achieved a minor breakthrough on a coding problem that has been holding me up for some time.

As an aside, in case I forget, meson800 deserves a partial coding credit or an acknowledgment at the very for all the help he's afforded me.
Hlynkacg is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 02-15-2014, 12:59 AM   #127
kuddel
Donator
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hlynkacg View Post
 In fact I just achieved a minor breakthrough on a coding problem that has been holding me up for some time.
Congrats! I know how frustrating such things can be...and how GREAT the moment of breakthroug feels after that

Any information (of public interest) on the problem? Especially, how you fixed it? Or was it just one of those 'facepalm' things that tend to happen?

Keep goin',
Kuddel


---edit---
Just saw the other thread about the thrusters, so I think there's no need for any further information.

Last edited by kuddel; 02-15-2014 at 01:04 AM.
kuddel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 07:43 PM   #128
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
 
Hlynkacg's Avatar


Default

Still working,

I've gone a little struct, and class tree happy and considering the lack of an AAPO manuel i should probably write some of this down.

RCS modes:
  • "Linear" as per Orbiter manual
  • "Rotation" as per Orbiter manual

toggle using [/]

Attitude Hold:
  • "Off" Attitude control inputs are mapped directly to thrusters. Autopilots and FCS are disabled.
  • "Hold" In absence of user input, the FCS will attemptto maintain current attitude and velocity. Essentially an auto-killrot
  • "Auto" If no autopilots are active attitude control inputs are mapped to linear or angular acceleration. Otherwise attitude inputs will be set by the FCS, note autopilots will be non functional unless attitude mode is in "auto"

toggle using [A], note "Hold Alt" autopilot has been disabled in AAPO vessels.

Vernier:
  • "Enabled" RCS authority reduced, FCS will prioritize thrust vectoring in attitude control.
  • "Disabled" RCS authority as normal, thrust vectoring limited to CoG balancing.

toggle using [V]

In addition to switches + indicator lights in the VC the status of these items will indicated by hud flags in the same manner as RCS modes and gear status for the DG.

---------- Post added at 11:43 ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 ----------

AAPO inheritance trees

AAPO::Vessel
  • LM
    • LM_Ascent
    • LM_Descent
    • LM_Lab
  • CSM
    • LES
    • CommandMod
    • ServiceMod
  • Chutes
    • CM_Drogues
    • CM_Mains
  • Junk
    • SM_BayCover
    • SLA
    • SLA_Panel
    • CM_NoseCone
    • CM_DockingProbe

AAPO::Cockpit
  • CM_VC
  • LM_AscentVC
  • LM_OrbitVC

AAPO::FCS
  • CapsuleFCS
  • LanderFCS

AAPO::Saturns
  • Booster
    • SaturnC1B
    • SaturnC5A
  • Pad
    • LC39
    • LC34
  • Stage
    • SatIb
    • SatIc
    • SatIIc
    • SatIVb

Last edited by Hlynkacg; 03-05-2014 at 09:11 PM.
Hlynkacg is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 03-07-2014, 09:39 PM   #129
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
 
Hlynkacg's Avatar


Default

Good News everyone!

the feature I just finished implementing is something I can actually take a screenshot of.



Can you spot the differences between these three LMs?

Hint: 4thRock should be pleased.

Last edited by Hlynkacg; 03-07-2014 at 09:55 PM.
Hlynkacg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 09:00 AM   #130
4throck
Enthusiast !
 
4throck's Avatar
Default

That is attention to detail indeed :-) Don't' forget that the landing stage also had different "versions". The same goes for the CSM.... I think you could do it just by changing textures.

A suggestion: leave room for a post Apollo 17 LEM, it may come handy
4throck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 09:25 PM   #131
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
 
Hlynkacg's Avatar


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4throck View Post
 That is attention to detail indeed :-) Don't' forget that the landing stage also had different "versions". The same goes for the CSM.... I think you could do it just by changing textures.

A suggestion: leave room for a post Apollo 17 LEM, it may come handy
Don't worry it's easily expandable.

There is now a string variable variable in the LM and CSM's code called "cSkinName" that can be set via scenario file.

cSkinName causes the module to check the new AAPO/Skins directory for a dds called "%module_%cSkinName.dds" if found it will apply it to the mesh.

From left to right in the above screenshot we have
  • "AscentStage_Mid.dds" (cSkinName = "Mid") representing Apollos 12 - 14 and the canceled "H missions"
  • "AscentStage_Late.dds" representing Apollo 15 and subsequent
  • "AscentStage_Early.dds" representing the initial production batch of 5 LMs, Apollos 9 - 11 as well as two test articles

(yes they are out of order)

To add a skin simply create a new dds for the vessel in question and call it CommandMod_x ServiceMod_x or whatever and then in the scenario set the skin name to x.


The bad news is that I've broken my RCS code again
Hlynkacg is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 03-11-2014, 08:14 PM   #132
4throck
Enthusiast !
 
4throck's Avatar
Default

Good news!
Please do the same for the descent stage (some minor differences but they do exist) and for the CSM

One thing that I noticed is that your LEM colors are accurate, based on a web reference I saw (http://pfinspace.com/lmdata/) .



Yet the LEM never looks that greenish on photos.... And most of the museum displays are mockups, so you can't use them as reference.

Last edited by 4throck; 03-11-2014 at 08:16 PM.
4throck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 08:37 PM   #133
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
 
Hlynkacg's Avatar


Default

There are actually two complete "flyable" LMs still on Earth. the one in the smithsonian's food-court is a Complete Block II (Mid era) LM than has been modified and repainted to look like a Block I, Specifically Eagle. It would have flown on Apollo 15, but Apollo 15 ended up being upgraded to a Block III LM after their landing site was changed and the spare Block II donated to the Smithsonian.

The second is hanging from the ceiling over KSC's Saturn V. It is the Block III that was being prepped for Apollo 18. No others survive that I am aware of.

As a fun side note. KSC's CSM is actually a 5 man "Rescue CSM" that was built to rescue a marooned Apollo or Skylab Crew. It has since been "restored" to the classic Apollo lunar configuration for display.

PS:
That site was actually one of my primary sources when I was working the LM's mesh.
Hlynkacg is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 03-11-2014, 11:05 PM   #134
4throck
Enthusiast !
 
4throck's Avatar
Default

Same here for the ATM B LEM derived observatory

You are right about the real hardware on display. But as you mention most of is was modified, so you can't use is as reference.
They might be acurate displays, but for the level of detail we now use in Orbiter, only real hardware is good enough :-)

So from what you write, only this LEM at KSC is not modified:


Does look close to the Apollo photos of the actual hardware, but still I can't see no hint of greenish tint. Perhaps yellowish...
But the lighting is not 100% natural.

Last edited by 4throck; 03-11-2014 at 11:07 PM.
4throck is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 03-12-2014, 02:21 PM   #135
N_Molson
Addon Developer
 
N_Molson's Avatar

Default

Quote:
As a fun side note. KSC's CSM is actually a 5 man "Rescue CSM"
Interesting. I didn't knew it existed.
N_Molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Addons > Addon Development


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:42 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.