Update Deepstar development

[80mileshigh]

A question 80mileshigh can you have the two landers and,the two shuttle type atmospheric landers all docked to the Deepstar at once?Thanks.

I'm still using the same docking port configuration: a zenith and nadir port at the centre of the structure and an animated forward dock. So you'll have to decide on your mission and pick which landers to take. I'll include scenarios with both options and a scenario with all the vessels together at the LEO station.

 

[Interceptor]

80mileshigh how about being able to bring the fuel tanks for the Deepstar Leo station up by a rocket,or XR5 Vanguard?just an idea,also will the the Leo station have more than one fuel tank when finished?Thanks

 

[80mileshigh]

80mileshigh how about being able to bring the fuel tanks for the Deepstar Leo station up by a rocket,or XR5 Vanguard?just an idea,also will the the Leo station have more than one fuel tank when finished?Thanks

Not this time, that's a bit beyond the scope of what I want to do with this release.

But here are some developments: Considering Pioneer's observations about solar panels, there are no solar panels beyond Saturn now and the base at Titan is nuclear powered.

In keeping with that, I've moved the station with solar panels from Uranus to Mars:



The station at Uranus now has a reactor in the style of old nuclear station concepts:



Propellant depots at Uranus and Neptune use similar reactors.

The base reactors are based on: https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/kilopower

Here's what Triton looks like now:



Lastly (for now) I've got the rover roving with Fred's General Vehicle module:



I've got a simple EV engine hum triggered by the wheel animation using Orbiter Sound 5.

 

[Kelly Wright]

I wanted to send you some words of encouragement. I loved the old Deepstar and can't wait for Tuesday.

 

[80mileshigh]

I wanted to send you some words of encouragement. I loved the old Deepstar and can't wait for Tuesday.

Thanks kindly, working on virtual cockpits right now. I'll post an update very soon.

 

[Kelly Wright]

Thanks kindly, working on virtual cockpits right now. I'll post an update very soon.

Any chance of a sneak peak at the moon lander? I am happy to do some Beta testing.

 

[80mileshigh]

Any chance of a sneak peak at the moon lander? I am happy to do some Beta testing.

Those landers are basically unchanged, with just a few tweaks like new RCS. You can see this on the previous page. Though the meshes are significantly optimised (consolidated mesh groups for higher fps) and the VCs will get an update.

Here's a progress shot of the Deepstar VC:



I'm learning a few techniques as I go and should be able to push out the other VCs faster once I'm done with this one.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah, the Space Shuttle kitchen timer. ?

 

[80mileshigh]

Can anyone point me to an SC4 add-on with a VC HUD that works in D3D9+2016 or is SC4 HUD rendering a known issue?

I'm having some problems and having a look at a working add-on might save me having to go into too much detail here.

 

[Face]

Well, SC4 is not (really) compatible with 2016, so I wouldn't be surprised if this feature is not working properly. Is it working in MOGE? If so, perhaps the device context mechanism difference between MOGE and OVP is the issue. I have not seen any SCx add-on working fully as it should in 2016, anyway. But then I have not tried ALL of them, either. Most suffer from a jettison bug that puts the payload at weird angles after decoupling.

 

[80mileshigh]

It's true I really need to learn some coding

SC4 is a compromise option for this add-on as the broken features aren't used. Far from ideal, of course, and something I'll look at in the future.

At first I thought the HUD was rendering in MOGE and not in D3D9 (JOGE? )

But as it turns out, it is rendering in D3D9, only very faintly, and only perceptible if a light object is behind it:

MOGE / DX7:



OVP / DX9:



MOGE / DX7:



OVP / DX9:




Any thoughts?

Note the MFDs are fine (the outboard ones are just static textures).

*On a related note; although Deepstar 2.1 is listed as Orbiter 2016 compatible the MFDs are broken. I've traced this to the FLAG 3 line above the mesh group. That flag is still listed as a requirement for VC MFDs in the API guide but would appear to be obsolete now. Commenting out FLAG 3 brings the MFDs back.

 

[Urwumpe]

Likely too faint, because the HUD is only a very small part of the FOV and the lines on the HUD pretty thin.

 

[80mileshigh]

Likely too faint, because the HUD is only a very small part of the FOV and the lines on the HUD pretty thin.

But it's only too faint in the dx9 client. I could model a bigger HUD, but it might be easier just to list it as a known issue that can be resolved when I get away from SC4.

I guess for any serious flying - trajectory planning, docking etc - many would use a non-VC view to maximise MFD / HUD visibility. The VC is just there to jump into and admire (hopefully!) so maybe it's not too much of a deal breaker?

An external HUD mod, like the external MFDs, would be a solution here if anyone is feeling inspired.

 

[Urwumpe]

But it's only too faint in the dx9 client. I could model a bigger HUD, but it might be easier just to list it as a known issue that can be resolved when I get away from SC4.

Well, that is your design decision. For a C++ add-on, there would also be the option to change the HUD rendering towards something more suited to this special VC view. But that would be more effort than it might be worth. What about asking jarmonik to allow some configuration options in DX9 for the default HUD? I could imagine that this is less effort overall, than a special C++ solution on your end. And could still allow to remove this "known issue" as a solved one.

 

[80mileshigh]

Well, that is your design decision. For a C++ add-on, there would also be the option to change the HUD rendering towards something more suited to this special VC view. But that would be more effort than it might be worth. What about asking jarmonik to allow some configuration options in DX9 for the default HUD? I could imagine that this is less effort overall, than a special C++ solution on your end. And could still allow to remove this "known issue" as a solved one.

I've put in a request. See how we go.

 

[80mileshigh]

A little breakthrough - I've got the HUD working in dx9 now:



Turns out you must assign MATERIAL 0 to the hud mesh group for it to appear effectively in dx9, although MOGE doesn't mind a material assigned.

You then need to add FLAG 7 for the mesh not to be illuminated at all in MOGE, while dx9 doesn't seem to be affected by this flag either way.

I don't know if this is unique to SC.dll based VCs, but figured adding this detail here could be useful to someone.

 

[80mileshigh]

Motoring along this weekend. Got the lifting body VCs done:





But ... I was browsing the Artemis landers thread and the discovery that Vessel Builder might allow a more interactive VC is very appealing. I'll proceed with this based on SC4 for the time being but investigate the possibility of switching over to VB if it's not too time consuming.

 

[Kelly Wright]

impatiently waiting for Tuesday...

 

[80mileshigh]

impatiently waiting for Tuesday...

Lander VC complete:



I promise a release before the end of the year, but it might be the last Tuesday in December

 

[predattak]

The atmospheric reentry shuttle (or lifting body) looks awesome! I love it ..man you and dansteph are giving me the hype of my life