Project G42-200 StarLiner

[MaverickSawyer]

:hesaid:
It's looking better all the time. Just let us know what to check for.
BTW, why does the G42 not like Velcro Droptanks? I tried to feed oxidizer from the droptanks, but it caused unlimited oxidizer, and then refueled the main fuel tank. Don't have the .scn handy, sorry.

 

[EnDSchultz]

Wow. Just wow. I've been following this thing for a long while now, but I only just now got around to downloading it. Again, wow.

It's nowhere near completion and even now I'm impressed. Granted, I haven't made orbit yet because of all the damned buttons.

But I think you're setting a new standard of functionality and detail with this project. So consider this my official (albeit meaningless) endorsement.

 

[Moach]

thanks! :thumbup:


speaking of functionality, i did just get the eicas screens (Engine Instrument and Crew Alert System) panels to switch between different display pages :woohoo:

that was the biggest hurdle the project would require in short term - mostly because i didn't know exactly how i'd pull it off.... but then - i managed it by dynamically switching the UV textures on panels vertices... and it actually worked ::


i'm happy now! - even tho i only rigged one of the 6 screens to do this, the other five are now just a matter of setting up the controls and stuff

and this means -- we can finally move on to simulating SYSTEMS!!! ::banana:


yep, things like hydraulics, electricals and whatnot have just become tangible, since we now have a way to display their working status and data (these would be pointless to simulate if we couldn't see what's going on, right?)



on a side note - i've finished texturing the cargo bay.... added an extendible Ku-Band antenna too, just for kicks :hmm:


ok, enough for today.... wife shall murder me dead if i spend any more time with my face stuck to these here monitors :lol:

 

[EnDSchultz]

Sweet deal. So there might one day soon(ish or not) be a use for all those switches on the overhead panel?

On a related note, I got her into orbit at last. Which, just like any vehicle, seems really easy once you get the switch sequence down. I love the ascent profile screen. Ravenstar Mk II devs should definitely take it as an example (if they ever actually get around to releasing a usable version :lol: )

 

[Moach]

i'd like to think someday most of those switches will have some effect, or at least look like they actually do something :hmm:


well, more on the news side -- as of today, all the eicas screens can be toggled on/off and can be set to any of 12 display modes - the config of all six panels is saved and loaded from the scenario file


now, we have only to get some actual info showing up on them... and it's just a matter of doing it, really... two modes already kinda work (you know, the main engines and ramcaster displays)



oh well.... things are going well, i believe.... i've set up a couple of URMS scenarios, and that thing fits perfectly in the cargo bay

i'm still considering writing my own RMS eventually, since then it could be controlled from "inside" the '42, which would be very nice to have once we get that bay-operations box and mid-deck cabin spaces modeled



but one thing at a time... that APU is looking like it could be the next cool thing to get cracking on.... let's see how it goes :thumbup:


i'll post a video once i get some more stuff up and running


let's see what else i can pull off before my sweet but so brief free-time window threatens to close down again

 

[icedown]

I love this. It's awesome :thumbup: Its a blast to fly and had just the right amount of switchyness to keep me occupied on the ascent but not overloading.

I'm finally consistently making it to the ISS. The only suggestion I have is a slight, maybe 5%, increase in oxidizer tank. I have plenty of fuel for the ascent, docking. I'm only running into issues with the deorbit burn.

 

[EnDSchultz]

I was under the impression you should be using the OMS for deorbit burn, which has its own separate tank and doesn't draw from the oxidizer.

 

[Cras]

I find the oxidizer tank to be just about right. Get into a nice LEO, and let the OMS do the rest of the work.

However, I have never attempted an accent with something in the payload bay, so that may change things.

 

[icedown]

I was under the impression you should be using the OMS for deorbit burn, which has its own separate tank and doesn't draw from the oxidizer.

I've tried that also. I tried that and ended up running out of fuel part of the way through the reentry and losing the RMS. I still made it back fine but it made for a much more unstable descent.

I will say though I'm not very efficient at making it to ISS yet. I still haven't got the timing down right and am lining out the final stage of the ascent. Not to mention I usually end up about a 1 to 1.5 deg off plane. Once I get that down good it may be enough but that's still cutting a bit close.

He also stated that the OMS weren't meant to raise the orbit over hundreds of km, so I figured that the same applied to dropping it as well.

 

[Moach]

a general flying tip - unless you're planning on spending some extra time in turbine-powered low speed flight (a plane intercept leg, or ATC clearance maybe), you can safely take off with a less than full main tank

also, without any cargo, you could even do without a full oxidizer load as well, since the lighter mass should give you enough boost to compensate the shorter burn time to some extent....



with the last released WIP version this may not work exactly the same.... but with the new engines code i'm working on here, it's pretty standard to takeoff with 85% or so main fuel - and that gets you and no cargo to the ISS, if you can fly economically enough

 

[JMW]

ok, enough for today.... wife shall murder me dead if i spend any more time with my face stuck to these here monitors :lol:

You mean you're MARRIED man !!!

How do you do it ?????? (Time building I mean) :tiphat:

A REAL BIG THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK !!

 

[Ripley]

...How do you do it ?????? (Time building I mean)...

I thought exactly the same!
Mut be one of those cases...

 

[Moach]

well, legally i'm not married yet (coming soon) - but for all practical effects, me and my GF live together as if we were indeed so :hmm:

yet every now and then i can secure me some "able time" (i call it that to distinct it from often unusable "free time") - and get some stuff done on the '42....

and well... between job, girl and french bulldog, there's much that comes along a lot slower than i'd like - but then again, can't have everything (tho trying still goes)




well, i did manage to get the navigation, strobes and beacon lights working this morning...

they work nicely but then i realised... with the hinged wings, i'll have to move the light points as well...

and since the Orbiter API doesn't really expose vector transform functionality from animation components, i might be looking at setting up some Quaternion device or whatever to get this done....


but now i'm back to work again, so i fear my "able time" could become very much lmited over the next few days...

anyways, every now and then i can do progress on the spaceplane while being at work, thank dropbox! - so by arriving a couple of hours early (which i usually do, since wife enters work so much earlier than myself), i can sometimes get a thing or two sorted out before i must move my coding efforts to the paying end of business :hmm:



yeah well... i'll keep you posted...

and if anyone could spare me a million dollars or so, i could really get things done oodles faster, you know *hint*hint* :thumbup:

 

[EnDSchultz]

How about we start with a $20 and work our way up from there?

 

[Moach]

well, got the lights all set out now - turns out there WAS a way to do it without reinventing the wheel...

good thing i decided to ask before going any further down crazy avenue


i still have plenty more lights to add - tho most of them don't really move from now on... and i wanna see if i can get some spotlights up and running to light up that station on docking and the ground when landing....

doing lights makes me think how it would be nice if there was some way to sort out that runway lights limitation on the graphics client....
yesterday i had to stop an approach half-way and reload it with inline graphics before landing in the dark :hmm:

i hope this eventually gets addressed, as far as i see it, it's the only really noticeably "missing" feature for the NG version....


ah well, sleep time.... eyes hurt... must work tomorrow

 

[Cras]

Lights? Great stuff. Can't wait to try it out with the new engines and apu.

And I am with you on the runway lights. I was wondering myself if they could just be added to the scenery or as a vessel instead. With out runway lights, I pretty much only shoot for daytime landings. But for those where time is an issue and I have to land at night, I too find myself having to use the inline. It is tough buisness landing at night with no visual guidance.

 

[Grover]

i usually end up landing at night, due to my usual forgetfullness ("damn it, i forgot to check what time it was before i de-orbited"), so im used to using the HSI/ILS, and WIN and KSC both have runway lights, so locating the runway is easy with a visual and an instrumental localiser

 

[EnDSchultz]

Typically I just cheat and use the scenario editor to change the date; I choose "maintain surface position" for the vessel propagation setting so I can just make it daytime over the landing site.

 

[Cras]

Typically I just cheat and use the scenario editor to change the date; I choose "maintain surface position" for the vessel propagation setting so I can just make it daytime over the landing site.

That certainly is one way to do it.

But I tend to only fly space planes. The XR-2, the Starliner, Eridanus, the Space Shuttle, and with their cross range capabilities, it is quite easy to be able to time it so to land during daytime.

 

[this is an old account]

I must say that this addon is astounding (and it's not even complete yet)! The G42 reminds me of the Skylon concept by Reaction Engines ltd.

Check it out!

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon.html

SSTO spacecraft are the future and you guys know it!