Project ATHLETE

[Michael_Chr]

Excellent... I think that a print to screen type of solution is fine. Will update the manual accordingly. Stay tuned...

---------- Post added at 08:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 AM ----------

Can see the Arm Control dialogue has been updated but I think somewhere along that process something bad happened. I cant get any of the joints to actuate now in version 5. All the buttons in the dialogue are dead.

 

[gattispilot]

Yes. I fixed that.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/71242599/TRIATHLETE.6.zip

Another added feature might be choice of direction of attachment.

On the bounce I think this is why. Not sure of a solution. What helps if the wheels are parallel with the surface.

This is what could be possible if the limbs are individually controlled also:

 

[Michael_Chr]

About the new control dialogue. To be honest I liked the old oner better. With the straight up and down arrows I could remember which button did what i.e. Up arrow meant that the center platform goes up and vice versa. For some reason this logic was reversed for joint 1 but I never got around to mention that. Also...the rounded arrows for joint 6 differentiated them clearly from the other button in that they were rotary joints.
One thing I noticed in Athlete v.6 was that the logic that turns and aligns the wheelbase to the x-axis now sometimes is out of sync with selection of the "base translation mode" (as I have dubbed it ).
I like the the idea with the choice of direction of attachment - will surely come in handy for some users. Means that the same cargo can be picked up in different ways...cool.
Individual controllable legs are also nice. I guess you would have to nominate a "Masterlimp" - one that would provide the offset for the contactpoint adjustment irrespective of the position of the other legs. But my recommandation would be that it should be mode selectable that you can control individual legs. As the leg functionality is right now I think its a very good trade-off between fidelity to the original and simplicity of use .
I can see that you havnt implemented the "mode announciation" sign in the controlbox yet...So I will hold the manual update a litte more
Really nice addon you have by now...it definatly stands out already

 

[Urwumpe]

Jumping is usually a sign, that your touchdown points accelerate faster than the acceleration by gravity. Increase the velocity of the leg joint movement slowly, and Orbiter should have no numerical problems there.

Remember that others have different frame rates than you have. An instant jump to 4 cm/s has a different effect at 100 fps than at 50 fps.

 

[gattispilot]

About the new control dialogue. To be honest I liked the old oner better. With the straight up and down arrows I could remember which button did what i.e. Up arrow meant that the center platform goes up and vice versa. For some reason this logic was reversed for joint 1 but I never got around to mention that. Also...the rounded arrows for joint 6 differentiated them clearly from the other button in that they were rotary joints.
One thing I noticed in Athlete v.6 was that the logic that turns and aligns the wheelbase to the x-axis now sometimes is out of sync with selection of the "base translation mode" (as I have dubbed it ).
I like the the idea with the choice of direction of attachment - will surely come in handy for some users. Means that the same cargo can be picked up in different ways...cool.
Individual controllable legs are also nice. I guess you would have to nominate a "Masterlimp" - one that would provide the offset for the contactpoint adjustment irrespective of the position of the other legs. But my recommandation would be that it should be mode selectable that you can control individual legs. As the leg functionality is right now I think its a very good trade-off between fidelity to the original and simplicity of use .
I can see that you havnt implemented the "mode announciation" sign in the controlbox yet...So I will hold the manual update a litte more
Really nice addon you have by now...it definatly stands out already

Ok I can go back with the arrows.
On the different attachment I think I can go with b/n for that direction.

In the cockpit view it states Translation/ direct motion.

The problem is when you go back to control all of the limbs unless you get that limb back to the place the others are at it will be off.

I think like the stow where the arms are set back to a position. I think I could do that. But I think there would be only one leg that could be the individualized.

So about the jumping. Do I need to slow the animation?

 

[Michael_Chr]

On the different attachment I think I can go with b/n for that direction.

Not sure what you mean with b/n

In the cockpit view it states Translation/ direct motion.

Copy...Dang...didn't notice :uhh:

I think like the stow where the arms are set back to a position. I think I could do that. But I think there would be only one leg that could be the individualized.

Maybe in the control dialogue you could have a radiobutton for each individual leg so when an individual leg is selected only that leg is affected. And a 7th selection for common control which would reset all leg to a stowed or default position upon selection?

So about the jumping. Do I need to slow the animation?

Based on Urwumpes input I will go and test this on my desktop computer. I can get a very high framerate there...So I will see if the jumping is significant there. But I suspect that it would be fine - and allthough there is jumping now...I think its at level where it is manegable.

 

[gattispilot]

Use the keys B/N for one direction of attachment and j/k for other direction.

Or I was thinking : hit space there you are given the choice to select limb 1-6 or all.


then the window with the controls appear.

And in the All control box a button to align. It would check all legs and align back to the same. If you have 1 leg designated not to move individually. It would be the standard that all limbs would go to.

Or a set position like all limbs fully extended.

What do you think about me adding attachment points at the wheel hubs? On the real one one could add a gripper, drill. But if it had attachment it could grap a cargo,....

 

[Michael_Chr]

B/N and J/K for attachment...:thumbup:

About preselecting one limp (or all) when hitting space....Even better idea than mine....also it keeps the size of the dialogue box to a minimum and procedural step wise its logical. And if you in the code can keep a status for one leg which all the other legs can align to when selecting all legs for simultanious actuation thats great.

Also the idea of adding an attachment point on the wheelhubs I like. For grappling tools or just moving cargo around like a crane. Maybe there could even be some toolmeshes that would normally would be hidden but can be selected...or am I going overboard here. Actually the Athlete could be on its way to also be a RMS type of system as well - a true swiss knife :lol:.

Btw...for the manual...do you want me to call it limps instead of legs...Just so there is consistancy. Not having english as my native tongue I might miss a lingual twist somewhere betweeb limps and legs:facepalm:

 

[gattispilot]

http://athlete.jpl.nasa.gov/
limb is the preferred.

 

[Michael_Chr]

Limp it is...

 

[gattispilot]

Limb not Limp

 

[Michael_Chr]

Limb...sorry...even I can tell the diff between limp and limb :facepalm:

 

[gattispilot]

Here is what the layout will look like when you press space
Then select which limb. Press align and the parts will align. What I did is there is a ghost mesh that follows the limb animation but not seen. So when all limbs are selected the ghost animation moves and sets the touchdown points. So then you can move any arm. Then when you press "Align" all the joint should align with the ghost.

One issue maybe that you steer using the dialogue box. The reason is using 7/8 turns the all the wheel assembly. That is ok for all but if you need Limb #1 wheel assembly to move all would move. But I think that you can press + for thrust and use the dialogue box.

 

[Michael_Chr]

I'm pretty much down with a cold to night. Expect to be back in commission in a couple of days

 

[gattispilot]

Hope you feel better.

I think this is right but still getting issues:

else if (SendDlgItemMessage(hWnd, IDC_JOINT5RIGHT, BM_GETSTATE, 0, 0) & BST_PUSHED) {
				sts->JOINT5G_proc = max(-.1, sts->JOINT5G_proc - (t1 - t0)*ARM_OPERATING_SPEED);
				if (sts->JOINT5G_proc < 0)sts->JOINT5G_proc = 1;
				sts->SetAnimationArm(sts->anim_JOINT5, sts->JOINT5G_proc);
				sts->SetAnimationArm(sts->anim_JOINT5A, sts->JOINT5G_proc);
				sts->SetAnimationArm(sts->anim_JOINT5B, sts->JOINT5G_proc);
				sts->SetAnimationArm(sts->anim_JOINT5C, sts->JOINT5G_proc);
				sts->SetAnimationArm(sts->anim_JOINT5D, sts->JOINT5G_proc);
				sts->SetAnimationArm(sts->anim_JOINT5E, sts->JOINT5G_proc);
				sts->SetAnimationArm(sts->anim_JOINT5G, sts->JOINT5G_proc);
				sts->JOINT5_proc = sts->JOINT5G_proc;
				sts->JOINT5A_proc = sts->JOINT5G_proc;
				sts->JOINT5B_proc = sts->JOINT5G_proc;
				sts->JOINT5C_proc = sts->JOINT5G_proc;
				sts->JOINT5D_proc = sts->JOINT5G_proc;
				sts->JOINT5E_proc = sts->JOINT5G_proc;
			}

Basically Here you are moving Joint5 on the Ghost arm thus JOINT5G. But I noticed the animated state didn't get moved to the individual limb. So even though JOINT5G_proc might be 1.0 the individual limbs would be different. So the proc for all JOINT5's need to be set to JOINT5G_proc

 

[Interceptor]

Hey John just wondering if you will include all this extra stuff for the SLS in one package?

 

[gattispilot]

Maybe. I think the SLS is done. I know others can upgrade textures,....

Listening to the Orion launch a reporter mentioned that would go on a vessel that doesn't exist yet.

But on the SLS not sure what else to add. Working on a new tower also. maybe lightning towers,....

 

[Michael_Chr]

Have done the change from leg to limb in the manual. I'm holding to the manual a little more expecting to update it on account of the rework to the Athlete as previously discussed. Can see you are making progress albeit being hampered by various challenges

 

[gattispilot]

Yes. Here is the advantage of individual legs. You don't have to damage the landing gear.

 

[Michael_Chr]

Ahh...now I understand what you meant with the comment about the landing legs. Sometimes one picture say more than a lot of words
Looks very fine indeed.
Have you decided which limp is the "Critical"...the one the rest will slew to and the one that set adjusted the ground contactpoint. I had thought that it should be one of the middle limps because then you were free to use either corner limps if you needed to use one limp in individual "tool" mode.
But from here I can see that that would be a bad idea - Better to use one of the corner limps for contact point adjustments! Maybe the "master" limp should have a little change in its mesh...like a little red ribbon or something.